AMERICANISM VERSUS COMMUNISM:
THE INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF AN IDEOLOGY
By
JEREMY HORNE
A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
1988
B OF F libraries
Copyright 1988
by
Jeremy Horne
To Jackie
You brought me good luck and evidence for my contentions.
You surely remember this quote:
You hire someone because you will earn more from
his labor than you will pay him in wages."
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
My initial thanks for helping make this
dissertation possible are to the chairperson of my
committee, Richard P. Haynes. Besides patiently going
over the numerous revisions of the manuscript, he
greatly assisted as graduate coordinator in getting me
admitted to the department and procuring my teaching
assistantship .
I am deeply indebted to Donald C. Hodges under
whom I have studied since 197 6. His deep insight has
been invaluable in guiding me through one of the most
valuable political philosophy programs I think a person
can experience. Don is one of the few individuals who
know the nature of the trail I have had to follow in
obtaining my Ph.D. In particular, I appreciate his
picking up where others left off in seeing this
dissertation through.
Ellen Haring patiently read the manuscript and
contributed her valuable time and advice about the form
of presentation. Robert D'Amico's persistent warnings
about objectivity and philosophical relevance helped
IV
V
keep the project on an even keel. Norman Market and I
had many conversations about labor politics and social
theory, and much of his valuable counsel has been
incorporated herein. Sam Andrews contributed many
helpful hints on sources and to him I am grateful.
Although Robert Baum did not contribute directly to
this work, he gave me continued moral support and
valuable assistance in my professional development in
coaching me in my responsibilities as teaching assistant
in logic. Of course, other departmental members helped
enormously .
Here, in Arizona, Perlita Gauthier took her
valuable time in editing this manuscript, Sandi Reynolds
typed the final draft, and my friend Dan Purcell helped
me print the final copy. Without their assistance many
last minute deadlines would not have been met.
My companion, Jacqueline Olan, put up with my
grouchiness, had the patience to stand by me during
numerous wretched moments, and provided the biggest
motivation of all.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iv
ABSTRACT viii
CHAPTER
ONE INTRODUCTION 1
TWO THE STATE OF FLORIDA'S D.O.E. PROGRAM:
A CASE STUDY 7
The Americanism versus Communism Act 7
The Free Enterprise and Consumer Education Act.... 13
What Social Studies Texts Teach 18
THREE HOW FLORIDA'S D.O.E. PROGRAM IS ADMINISTERED. . 27
How the State Administers the D.O.E. Program 27
How Businesses Implement the D.O.E. Program 30
FOUR WHY THE D.O.E. PROGRAM IS IDEOLOGICAL 37
The Issue of Ideology 37
How the D.O.E. Defines Ideology 39
What Mainstream Writers Say About Ideology 42
FIVE THE D.O.E. 'S DEBT TO CONSERVATIVE PHILOSOPHY .. 49
Niemeyer's Philosophy 49
Classical Foundations of the D.O.E. Ideology 58
The Authoritarian Basis of the D.O.E. Program 65
The Role of Religion and Faith
in the D.O.E. Ideology 70
How Freedom and Liberty Shape the D.O.E. Ideology. 73
Critical Thinking As A Part of the D.O.E. Program. 76
vx
Vll
SIX THE D.O.E. IDEOLOGY AND SOCIAL REALITY 86
How Students Are Told They Must Act
in the Workplace 86
Business Values Underlying the Curriculum 93
What the Business Values Mean 97
SEVEN THE D.O.E. PROGRAM AND PHILOSOPHY 103
What Constitutes Reasoning and Critical Thinking. 103
What Logic Is 114
What It Means To Think Philosophically 118
EIGHT HOW THE D.O.E. PRESENTS ITS COURSES 122
The D.O.E. System of Logic 122
The D.O.E. 's Deductive Methodology 130
Other Logical Approaches 137
Criteria For Analyzing Social Systems 141
NINE ALTERNATIVES TO THE D.O.E. PROGRAM 144
Why Change Is Needed 144
Alternative Cold War Education Programs 148
What A Cold War Education Program Must Address ... 153
The California Program 156
APPENDICES
A THE AMERICANISM VERSUS COMMUNISM ACT 162
B THE FREE ENTERPRISE AND CONSUMER
EDUCATION ACT 164
WORKS CITED 166
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
174
Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate
School of the University of Florida in Partial
Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor
of Philosophy
AMERICANISM VERSUS COMMUNISM:
THE INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF AN IDEOLOGY
by
Jeremy Horne
December, 1988
Chairman: Richard P. Haynes
Major Department: Philosophy
In order to graduate, Florida's high school
students by law must learn that Communism is evil,
dangerous, and fallacious. All students must learn that
the U.S. produces the highest standard of living and the
most freedom than any other economic system on earth.
State universities in Florida are creating a curriculum
to implement the Americanism versus Communism Act
(A.V.C.) of 1961 and the Free Enterprise and Consumer
Education Act (F.E.C.E.A.) of 1975.
The Florida Department of Education says that
ideology, noncritical thinking, is superior to
Vlll
IX
critical thinking and that the superiority of the U.S.
political economy and the dignity of the individual rest
in part on peoples' being able to express themselves
freely.
Florida's A.V.C. and F.E.C.E.A. proponents have a
special way of convincing audiences that they will
develop loyalty while at the same time imposing a set of
ideas not open to question.
This work argues that, intentionally or not,
Florida's legislature and Department of Education have
set up an official ideology and the mechanism to purvey
it. This ideological approach defeats the aim of
comparing systems objectively. While the stated aim is
to promote critical thinking, the D.O.E.'s special
philosophy underscoring words like "democracy" results
in indoctrinating students with a questionable
description of the U.S. system.
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
In order to graduate, Florida's high school
students by law must be "informed as to the evils,
dangers and fallacies of Communism" and understand that
"the free-enterprise-competitive economy" is the one
system that "produces higher wages, higher standards of
living, greater personal freedom and liberty than any
other system of economics on earth" {Florida Revised
Statutes 233.064). This means giving the answers
mandated by law and wanted by the Department of
Education (D.O.E.), even though the U.S. system is
continually being debated in public forums and election
campaigns. Teachers, says the legislature, are not to
"present Communism as preferable" to the U.S. "free-
enterprise-competitive economy." To meet what the
legislators see as the "challenge" of communism's
"manipulation of youth and student groups" Florida's
Department of Education (D.O.E.) has an ongoing
curriculum mandated by the Americanism vs. Communism Act
(A.V.C.) and the Free Enterprise and Consumer Education
Act (F.E.C.E.A.) (collectively referred to herein as
1
2
"program"). This program, in which the answers to
questions of relative value are dictated by the teaching
materials, is implicitly justified by the need to combat
ideology--specif ically communism (233.064).
Communism, says the D.O.E., "is an ideology," and
ideology is "a system of ideas . . . which its adherents
do not consider open to question or criticism" {Florida
State 19-20). "The Communist Party's aim is to conquer
the world . . . ," and that party's ideology "provides
the communist with a false belief of reality" Florida
State 34). To combat these "evils, dangers and
fallacies of Communism" the legislature wants teachers
to "instill in the minds of students a greater
appreciation of democratic processes," and that means
teaching students the opposite of ideology, that is,
philosophy. Ideology, says the D.O.E., is noncritical
thinking, and philosophy is critical thinking {Florida
State 18). The D.O.E. claims that the superiority of
the U.S. political economy and the dignity of the
individual rest in part on peoples' being able to
express themselves freely in a critical manner. Both
the D.O.E. and the legislature have said much on the
relationship between the dignity of the individual and
free speech.
3
Florida's legislature tells the D.O.E. to take as
one of the guides for instructional material the
"official reports of the [defunct] House Committee on
Un-American Activities ..." (also known by its more
pronounceable acronym, "H.U.A.C."). The H.U.A.C. issued
a statement "Americanism Defined, " and that is referred
to in the D.O.E. curriculum guide on the A.V.C. Act
(Florida State 65). That statement says a person's
inalienable rights include the freedom of speech and
press, and the D.O.E. reinforces this by averring that
individual dignity and worth is possible "only when
individuals are given free access to all different
competing viewpoints" (4, 65).
Legislators wanted the program to counter
"communism" and Marxism for the isms' dogmatic approach
to thinking. Gerhart Niemeyer, chief consultant for the
A.V.C. program, wrote several works accusing Marxists of
being ideological. Both the legislature and the D.O.E.
detest communism and Marxism, claiming that the "isms"
do not promote critical thinking. "The proper study of
communism," says the D.O.E. "is similar to that of a
scientist who examines the poison in order to offset its
evil effect." In teaching the A.V.C. curriculum, "it is
suggested that a critical analytical approach be used"
4
in teaching about the "cominunist conspiracy" {Florida
State 12). Students are urged by the D.O.E. to think
critically as dignified individuals, even though they
are expected to believe a social doctrine before they
see it demonstrated as best in comparison with others.
Florida's A.V.C. and F.E.C.E.A. proponents have a
special way of convincing audiences of the program's
benefits while at the same time imposing a set of ideas
not open to question. The legislature warns of
communism's "false doctrines" and "manipulation of
youth" {Statutes, 233.064), and the D.O.E. says that
"double-talk" has been used as "a prominent communist
deceptive device to fool non-communists" {Florida State
19). If students follow the guidance of legislators, it
is argued that communism will be less able to take over
the world by deceit and force.
Programs similar to that of Florida's are
widespread, many are established by law, and present
fundamental problems on how to promote critical
thinking. Besides the nationwide implications of
Florida's attempt to suppress any challenge to
capitalism, the Florida program needs also to be
examined in the light of the continuing effort to
promote critical thinking in the schools.
5
This work argues that, intentionally or not,
Florida's legislature and Department of Education have
set up an official ideology and the mechanism to purvey
it. This ideological approach defeats the aim of
comparing systems objectively. While the stated aim is
to promote critical thinking, the D.O.E.'s special
philosophy of underscoring words like "democracy"
results in indoctrinating students with a questionable
description of the U.S. system.
The ostensible D.O.E. objective of critical
thinking becomes transformed under the influence of the
philosophy of Gerhart Niemeyer and like-minded
conservatives shaping the program. Both the A.V.C. and
F.E.C.E.A. are products of a cold war philosophy that
pits the U.S. system against others. Private businesses
are advocates of the D.O.E. program, and numerous
statements by "free enterprise" supporters demonstrate
that the D.O.E. program serves more the interests of
its sponsors than the ideal of teaching students to be
open-minded. Materials used to orient students to the
workplace reinforce the values of the program's
sponsors. Rather than promoting critical thinking, it is
a program serving the interests of those who seem to
6
believe that the average individual cannot think
critically .
It will be shown why the current curriculum does
not accomplish the D.O.E.'s stated objective of teaching
students to think critically. Clarifying the meaning of
critical thinking will help in designing a program to
meet that objective. The second part of this work
evaluates the D.O.E. program according to generally
accepted standards for critical thinking and suggests
the California model curriculum as a type of alternative
program.
CHAPTER TWO
THE STATE OF FLORIDA'S D.O.E. PROGRAM:
A CASE STUDY
The Arnericanism versus Cominunism Act
Americanism versus communism debates in the U.S.
go back to the 1870s when Birdsey Grant Northrop of the
Connecticut State Board of Education wrote an essay
called "Schools and Communism." He deplored "communism"
and assured persons that the public schools were
teaching students to be loyal to the U.S., and children
would not be turned into Communists (Fraser 355). Since
the Bolsheviks took power in Russia in 1917, anti-
communist hysteria has surfaced numerous times in the
U.S., evidenced by the 1920 's Red Scare, the loyalty
oath and internal security acts of the late 1940s,
President Truman's 12 March 1947 containment-of -
communism speech, and the McCarthy period. After the
Korean War, Florida's anti-communist activists began
formulating their programs (Florida State iii-vi).
Florida Bar Association members in 1955 went to
schools and delivered a lecture, "The Meaning of
Communism, " published and issued jointly by the Bar and
7
8
the Florida State Department of Education (D.O.E.). So
popular was this tract that it received national acclaim
and endorsement by many influential conservative
organizations, such as Freedoms Foundation. Pressure
mounted from both the Florida public and from government
officials to create a public high school course composed
of similar materials, and in the ensuing years, the
D.O.E. proposed such a curriculum to the legislature
(Florida State iii).
The course material was taken principally from the
hearings and publications of the old House Committee on
Un-American Activities (also known by its more
pronounceable acronym, "H.U.A.C.") and Senate Internal
Security Subcommittee (S.I.S.C.) and their supporters.
The major thrust of the political orientation course
proposed to the legislature was anti-communist, and the
course name, "Americanism versus Communism," suggests
that the instructors should contrast the two systems
rather than compare them. To meet what the legislators
described as a challenge of the Communist "exploitation
and manipulation of youth and student groups," the
course was to "instill in the minds of students" not
only the "evils, danger and fallacies of communism" but
"a greater appreciation of democratic processes, freedom
9
under law, and the will to preserve that freedom"
(Florida Statutes 233 . 064 ( 1 ) (b) and 3).
Cold war schooling became official when the Florida
State Legislature acted upon the D.O.E.'s proposal and
passed the "Americanism versus Communism Act of 1961." A
program advisory committee, composed of legislators,
private citizens, and educators first met in October
1961 to put together the Americanism versus Communism
curriculum, and by January of the following year, both
the course content and the methods were ready to be
approved by the D.O.E. and the state legislature. Ever
since it was first taught in Florida's public high
schools in September, 1962, the Americanism versus
Communism course (hereinafter referred to as A.V.C.) has
been a required course for graduation. The statute
establishes the guidelines while the D.O.E. selects
texts and other materials "as provided by state law"
(233.064(6) ) .
The law says that "The free enterprise competitive
economy of the United States" is the economy "which
produces higher wages, higher standards of living,
greater personal freedom, and liberty than any other
system of economics on earth" (Florida Revised Statutes
233.064(4)). In its Resource Unit handbook the D.O.E.
10
suggests students refer for a definition of Americanism
to the H.U.A.C.'s statement "Americanism Defined."
Americanism, says H.U.A.C., means that the "Inherent and
fundamental rights of man are derived from God and not
from any other source," as was stated in the Declaration
of Independence. Second, the inherent or unalienable
rights include freedom of worship, speech, press,
assemblage, and right to work according to one's
qualifications. As another right, one should enjoy the
fruits of work, including property and the pursuit of
happiness, as long as such activity does not prevent
others from doing the same. Third, the structure of the
U.S. government is based upon these principles. Fourth,
law and order must be maintained to preserve these
rights. Fifth, the government is the servant of the
people, and a checks-and-balances system is necessary to
control government power. Sixth, majority rule is far
less important than minority rights. Finally, the
statement accredits Americanist principles to the
Declaration of Independence and the Constitution
(Florida State 65).
As to teaching methods, the statute said that "No
teacher or textual material assigned to the course shall
present Communism as preferable to the system of
11
constitutional government and the free-enterprise
competitive economy indigenous to the United States"
(Florida Revised Statutes 233.064(7)). The D.O.E. course
handbook, A Resource Unit, AMERICANISM VERSUS COMMUNISM
says course "materials should be used only to
demonstrate the evils, fallacies, and contradictions of
communism," those materials coming from the H.U.A.C. or
S.I.S.C. lists or from avowed anti-communists (Florida
State 68). The teachers were not to teach the course
"unless informed about the nature of communism, " and
those teachers feeling inadequately informed about
communism, or unfamiliar with the course, its goals and
content "should not attempt to teach it without first
obtaining additional preparation" (Florida State vi).
For example, a number of attempts to repeal the
A.V.C. law have failed. On 4 June 1982, B. Frank Brown,
program manager of the prestigious Charles S. Kettering
Foundation and chairman of the Governor's Commission on
Secondary Schools, sent a report to Governor Robert
Graham recommending "the repeal of the requirement of a
30-hour course in Americanism vs. Communism." Brown and
five members of the Florida legislature, the
superintendent of the Monroe County Schools, a member of
the State Board of Education, and four others from
12
educational establishments sat on the commission. They
said that the A.V.C. course was hard to implement, and
legislative requirements should pertain only to "major
academic subjects" (Governor's XIII). The 1983
legislature ignored the report, and by an 89 to 26 vote,
the A.V.C. law was sustained.
These failures suggest that the A.V.C. program
still has enough support to keep it alive. The most
recent stronghold of backing has been southern Florida,
home of many Cuban exiles, who generally are militantly
anti-Communist (Skene). However, as of Spring 1988, the
original 1961 law was still on the books, and in order
to graduate, high school students need to take "a
comparative study of the history, doctrines, and
objectives of all major political systems in fulfillment
of the requirements of 233.064," the original A.V.C. Act
(Florida Statutes 232 . 246 ( 1 ) (b) ( 5 ) ) . Teachers still have
to use an antiquated bibliography from which to draw
materials to instill in the minds of students the
"evils" and "fallacies" of communism, indicating that
academic interest in composing a new bibliography is
declining.
13
The Free Enterprise and Consumer Education Act
Another indoctrination program was instituted in
1975. Originally intended as a replacement for A.V.C.,
the Free Enterprise and Consumer Education Act
(F.E.C.E.A.) now complements the A.V.C. by emphasizing
economics (Florida Statutes 233.0641). As early as March
1963, the social studies consultant for the D.O.E. noted
that new accreditation standards placed the
responsibility for economic education upon the teachers
and schools. Such a program would involve "The
curriculum from K-12," and it assumed that students did
not understand the philosophy and structure of the "free
enterprise" economy to which the A.V.C. referred
(Kastner 33 ) .
The law states , "The free enterprise or
competitive economic system exists as the prevailing
economic system in the United States . . . " and "The
public schools shall each conduct a free enterprise and
consumer education program in which each student shall
participate" (Florida Statutes 233.0641(2)). The law
states that the course must include information about
day-by-day consumer activities, such as banking,
advertising, insurance, and "an orientation in other
14
economic systems." With respect to what is expected of
individuals, students learn what is and what is not
suitable economic behavior through instruction at each
grade level. Students are instilled with a doctrine
before graduation, and an organizational apparatus
exists to carry out the indoctrination program.
According to the statute, the D.O.E. instructs
personnel in the F.E.C.E.A.'s administration and
involves other academic disciplines as well as private
governmental organizations related to consumer
education. The Commissioner of Education makes reports
to the legislature about the program with recommended
ways of gauging the curriculum's success. The D.O.E.
gives reports "as to the effectiveness as shown by
performance-based tests, efficiency, and utilization of
resources" (Florida Statutes 233.0641(5)). Some 89
objectives are to be accomplished by the Free Enterprise
course. For example, students "will identify elements of
the American economic system to include: freedom,
opportunity, justice, efficiency, growth, and security."
They must remember a number of specific definitions,
such as "production [is] the creation of goods or
services" (Goddard, Carr, and Randall, CH-310, 72-73).
15
Students graduating from high school must have attained
these objectives.
For assistance in assembling the large F.E.C.E.A.
curriculum, the D.O.E. called upon the Florida Council
on Economic Education (F.C.E.E.), consisting of
government and business personnel and one union
representative. In turn, the F.C.E.E. board affiliated
with university centers for economic education to create
the curriculum (Florida Council, Annual Report).
A description of the course content can best be
obtained from materials prepared by the Center for
Economic Education (C.E.E.), an organization co-
sponsored by the College of Business Administration and
the College of Education at the University of Florida.
Although seven other universities prepare F.E.C.E.A.
materials, the University of Florida is the only
university creating a comprehensive economic orientation
program (C.E.E. flier). University Centers may emphasize
parts of the free enterprise program differently, but
all 89 objectives have to be met by the schools.
The C.E.E. groups the 89 objectives under 22
headings. Subjects include comparative economic systemis,
economic principles, organizations, and consumer
behavior. Other topics are public and private property
16
distribution, basic economic laws, economic institutions
such as banks, and consumer habits. More topics are
labor unions, governments, private entities, technology,
energy, and ethics. Four text/workbooks prepared by the
C.E.E. represent the kinds of material being taught at
all grade levels.
Among the first principles that grade school
children must learn is the distinction between public
and private property. "Private property" is that "which
is owned by an individual or a group of individuals,"
while "public property" is property "owned by everyone
and which should be used according to certain rules
(Goddard, Carr, and Randall, CE-102, 2). In giving the
impression that private property is sacrosanct, second
graders are not taught that private property might have
to be heavily regulated and that productive property
should be used according to what is deemed desirable for
society as a whole. Private property and private
ownership of the means of production are treated as
preferred institutions, while governmental functions
primarily center about protecting property. The
workbook on property tells a story about several people
being robbed of their property and the need for the
police .
17
For the second grader, the excuse for taxes is to
pay the police, whose major function is to preserve
private property. The first impression that these very
young children have of what a society should be is not
that of a collective and cooperative entity, but a
collection of individuals who use a strong-arm agency to
protect their selfish interests. Although the grade two
booklet later describes other governmental functions,
the students initially are taught that private property
is the primary institution around which governments and
society revolve (Goddard et al., CE-102, 1).
In Middle School (grades 7 through 9) students
continue work with concepts relevant to a small pre-
industrial economy. Everyone presumably is on an equal
footing, and one's rationally calculated actions will
have the desired and gainful results of hard work,
competition, thrift, and inventiveness. Land, labor,
capital, combined with management enables a
businessperson to thrive, the principal reward being
profit, "the reward for taking risk in business"
(Goddard et al., CM-202, 21).
High school students encounter a somewhat more
sophisticated model of the U.S. economy. Social
problems, such as unemployment and monopolies, temper
18
the ideal economy presented in grammar school, although
students are still taught that the U.S. economy is "free
enterprise" and that it is the vastly superior political
economy (Goddard et al., CH-310, 33). The D.O.E. offers
students arguments that the system has corrective
mechanisms to solve the major problems, and materials
remind them constantly that the "individual freedom of
choice is a central element of the American Free
Enterprise System" (Goddard et al., CH-310, 13).
Individuals theoretically may choose the goods they buy,
the place and type of work they do, and the type of
business they want to operate. Attendant problems, such
as fraud, harmful products, and unsafe working
conditions are remedied by adequate regulatory
mechanisms like government agencies and competition.
Students are told that "we do not believe that any group
of experts or legislators can better make decisions
about what will enhance the quality of our life as well
as we can" (Goddard et al., CH-310, 34).
What Social Studies Texts Teach
Two often used social studies texts. Our American
Government and Political System by Wit and
Dionisopolous , and McClenaghan ' s Magruder's American
19
Government , reflect the curricular content specified by
the A.V.C. and Free Enterprise Acts. Fundamentals of
the American Free Enterprise System by Hodgetts and
Smart typifies a high school economics course. The
political system, says Wit and Dionisopolous is " . . .
the primary source of social control and collective
action in the society in which it exists (20). Among a
number of elements comprising the U.S. political
economic systems are 1) popular sovereignty, where
political decision-making ultimately rests with the
whole population, 2) majority rule with a respect for
minority rights, 3) the "rational man," who effects
change through persuasion rather than force, 4) rights
as outlined in the Bill of Rights and related documents,
and 5) the need to keep the political/economic system
intact ( 54-70 ) .
Wit and Dionisopolous say that natural law and
ideology shape the system. Law is a code of behavior
given to humanity by God (80). Ideology is "good" or
"moral" principles (609). These two writers compare and
contrast democracy with the Fascist, Nazi, and Communist
"dictatorships." Against the latter three, the U.S.
must struggle. While Wit and Dionisopolous do maintain
that democracy has problems, they say corrective
20
processes, such as checks and balances, allow people to
effect change. Dictatorships do not tolerate popular
decision-making (562).
Both Wit and Dionisopolous describe "Free
Enterprise, " as a system having the " . . . high degree
of individual freedom desired by most Americans (562).
They term the prevailing economic system in the U.S.
"free enterprise" but qualify "free" by saying the
government regulates businesses. Two principles
undergirding "free enterprise" are private property
ownership and freedom to own and operate a business.
Three additional features are profit motive, free
market, and limited government intervention (566).
Whenever economic activity becomes harmful to others,
then the government regulates. Though they say the
system is flexible enough to deal with problems, the
authors question whether the system provides adequate
economic security and alleviates economic suffering
(592). Wit and Dionisopolous indicate that the U.S.
"free-market system" is impressive, most compatible with
democratic values, and is much better than what workers
encounter in "a communist nation" (571).
In Magruder's American Government, McClenaghan
recognizes the greater sophistication of his post-Viet-
21
Naiti audience, and is interested in resolving problems
within the system through techniques such as conflict
resolution. Despite the absence of the 1950s' style
rhetoric, none of the basic suppositions that Wit and
Dionisopolous make about the system are challenged
seriously. Compared to other text writers, such as Wit,
McClenaghan supports his views with more emotional
means, such as nationalism and religion.
He starts much like Wit and Dionisopolous in
outlining the purposes of political and economic
systems. Social systems, of which the State is a major
element, make human survival possible by making and
enforcing laws (6). "Democracy" is the form of
government where "supreme political authority rests with
the people," and power is maintained only by popular
consent (11). The chief features of a "democracy" are
the concept of basic individual worth and dignity,
equality of persons before the law, majority rule and
minority rights, a need for compromise, and individual
freedom as listed in the Bill of Rights. These
characteristics of a "democracy" define the U.S. social
system and it is a primary function of our government to
keep it intact. Therefore, our government must not allow
a "non-democratic" system to predominate.
22
McClenaghan continues on to say that democracy
exists in this country because, as a people, we believe
in the concepts upon which it is based. "It will
continue to exist, and be improved in practice, only for
so long as we continue to subscribe to--and practice--
those concepts" (12). In other words, people must live a
lifestyle incorporating what they believe to be
democracy if the U.S. system is not to collapse. Part
of that life includes combating external threats. He
states that external threats to the system exist and are
mainly posed by the U.S.S.R., but he suggests that
internal problems are solvable and less threatening.
External threats exist, posed mainly by the Soviet
Union. Problems do occur within the U.S. system, but
McClenaghan says that, unlike in the U.S.S.R., they are
solvable within the system using democratic processes
(14) .
He concedes that "free enterprise" as basically a
private economy subsists only as a model system. The
actuality is a mixed economy, one with major
governmental intervention to smooth out business cycles
and "curb abuses" (694-695). Because free enterprise
" . . . provides a large segment of the population of the
United States with one of the world's highest standards
23
of living," McClenaghan says, "Most of the people of the
United States believe that a well-regulated capitalistic
systeiB--one of free choice, individual incentive,
private enterprise--is the best guarantee of the better
life for everyone," and accentuates that the people's
belief sustains the system, making it democratic (695,
17).
Hodgetts and Smart, in Fundamentals of the American
Free Enterprise System, says that "free enterprise" is
characterized by private property, private enterprise,
and freedom of choice. It rests upon the ideals
cherished by many Americans, mainly ". . . democratic
government, personal freedom and responsibility, respect
for the law, and the dignity of the individual." The
system ". . .is based upon American customs, laws, and
institutions, and "it is a basic part of American
civilization and our way of life" (6). Processes
maintaining it are popular subscription and goal
oriented behavior in the form of production and growth.
Hodgetts and Smart echo the claim made by other texts
and the D.O.E. material that capitalism has its problems
but still provides the best means of solving economic
problems .
24
Few of the foregoing points made by the text
writers are exceptional. It is in the implicit doctrines
advocated indirectly by the D.O.E. that disturbing
elements are to be found. While text writers do not
stress that only a transcendental god is the author of
rights, the D.O.E. suggests so when it refers students
to the statement on Americanism (Florida State 65).
Public ownership and/or control of the means of
production should not be encouraged. Individuals and
organizations should not promote actions designed to
alter or replace the "free enterprise" system. Private
nonproductive property must be preserved, as well as the
private ownership of the means of production. Writers
like McClenaghan say, "private enterprise is the best
guarantee of the better life for everyone " (19), and
the A.V.C. Act says that free enterprise is the best
system on earth.
Both text writers and the D.O.E. agree that under
"free enterprise" individuals are afforded the rights
and protection enumerated in the Bill of Rights and
related law. This includes the right to dissent,
minority rights, "dignity of the individual," and the
right to choose when and where to work (Wit and
25
Dionisopolous 32, McClenaghan 12-16, Goddard et al., CH-
310, 13, Florida Statutes 233.064).
Because free enterprise produces the highest
standard of living in the world, other systems (those
not promoting the above elements) are to be discouraged
from flourishing both nationally and worldwide. People
like McClenaghan say it, and the legislature agrees
(McClenaghan 19, Florida Statutes 233.064).
The "dignity of the individual" hinges upon the
U.S. system's viability. Writers like Wit and
McClenaghan argue this, and the D.O.E. concurs (Wit and
Dionisopolous 54-70, McClenaghan 12, Florida State 3-4).
Both the D.O.E. curricular material and the social
studies texts claim that the U.S. system is superior to
communism because in the former, a person is encouraged
to criticize the government, and in the latter people
are told what to do. The U.S. reputedly is a free
country, where one can live a relatively unrestricted
lifestyle, but in the U.S.S.R. people supposedly have a
grim life filled with trepidation (McClenaghan 702-709,
Goddard et al., CH-310, 13-14, Florida State passim).
Yet, Florida students must take a program which
discourages the favorable consideration of non-
capitalistic systems and non-Western religious views.
26
(Florida Statutes 233.09, 233.064). If maintaining the
current D.O.E. program does not foster free expression
and critical thinking, then whose interests are served?
The next chapter answers this guestion.
CHAPTER THREE
HOW FLORIDA'S D.O.E. PROGRAM IS ADMINISTERED
How The State Administers the D.O.E. Program
Public and private institutions comprise an
elaborate structural apparatus to implement the D.O.E.
course program. Included are the legislature, the
D.O.E., the individual county school systems, and
private organizations. Both the Americanism versus
Communism (A.V.C.) and the Free Enterprise and Consumer
Education (F.E.C.E.) Acts are administered through the
government, but private organizations also help run the
F.E.C.E. program (Florida Revised Statutes 233.0641 and
232.246). Some critics argue that a number of the
private organizations form a corporate elite, "corporate
Florida" (Mills 147-170, and Butcher passim).
The Florida state legislature passes laws and has,
through the budget, ultimate supervisory authority over
the D.O.E. program. From the time the A.V.C. law was
passed in 1961 to the present, the Florida legislature
has been composed mainly of private employers,
attorneys, and "educators." The majority of the workers
in Florida and the families of students receiving the
27
28
the economic instruction of the A.V.C. belong neither to
these groups nor to the formal civil service
bureaucracy. There is no mechanism provided for
evaluation of the program nor for inviting discussion by
those persons most directly affected. The classroom
teacher, normally the source of variable points of view
on questions of value, is provided a curriculum by
D.O.E. which has little latitude for the introduction of
teacher commentary. (Morris 19 et seg. , Bowles and
Gintis 90, Florida Statistical Abstract 260 and 265).
The school system bureaucracy merely implements
what the legislature wants. Specific administrative
measures, such as teacher contract enforcement, are
enacted to carry out the laws {Florida Revised Statutes
231.09). Advisory committees and the Secretary of
Education oversee the details of how the program will be
effected. The D.O.E. oversees the implementation of the
policies by the school districts. School districts may
create their own curriculum, but the D.O.E. sends in
auditors every five years to determine whether the
intent of the law is being met. In addition, students
take examinations to assess mastery of the A.V.C. and
F.E.C.E. material {Florida Revised Statutes 232.246(2)).
29
There is a section in the 1983 Raise act called
"Coordination of Vocational Education" assuring that
vocational education would be part of the economic
orientation {Florida Revised Statutes 232.246(14)). A
bureaucratic apparatus consisting of regional
coordinating councils is established to coordinate
vocational training programs. Although the law
stipulates that "outside" members of the coordinating
councils will be composed of "bona fide trade and
business organizations," the only control over the
composition of the councils is the guarantee that at
least one member shall be drawn from a "private industry
council" {Florida Revised Statutes 2 32 . 2 4 6 ( 1 4 ) ( 3 ) ) .
Nothing is mentioned about any member of a labor
organization having to be on the council.
The goals of the coordinating councils are to 1)
"maximize effective student articulation" in vocational
educational programs; 2) maintain effective connections
with business and industry to meet the needs of the
labor market; 3) coordinate governmental efforts at
vocational education; 4) make vocational education cost-
effective. State resources are to be made available to
the Council and state cooperation is expected {Florida
Revised Statutes 232.246(15)). No objective deals with
30
any attempt to meet demands by students for particular
training.
How Businesses Implement the D.O.E. Program
Chapter Two mentioned that the D.O.E. courses
formed a part of a total political economic orientation
program involving all students. Businesses promote the
D.O.E. courses extensively, an unusual example of strong
outside influence on classroom instruction, especially
when the private aims of business can be affected by the
result of the educational program.
In 1948, the national office of the Joint Council
on Economic Education was formed by business leaders to
disseminate information about the U.S. economy. It was
supposed to present a "non-partisan" explanation of the
economy. In turn, various state branches were
established, philosophically akin to the national
organization. A private organization, the Florida
Council on Economic Education (F.C.E.E.) was established
to work in conjunction with the D.O.E. to create the
curriculum for the free enterprise program.
Its objectives are "increasing the level of
economic literacy in Florida as well as an appreciation
for our American Economic System." The F.C.E.E. claims
31
that it wants to teach students "how to think, NOT what
to think" while providing economic reasoning skills
concerning "fundamental issues and problems,"
institutions, and major concepts needed for the "kind of
economic knowledge a person needs in order to function
as a citizen, worker, and consumer in the American
Economic System" (F.C.E.E. Annual Report 3).
An F.C.E.E. publication, "WHY? The Free Enterprise
Development Fund," tempers this ostensibly neutral
objective by saying that free enterprise is being
introduced in all of Florida's schools at all levels,
"not as a separate subject, but as an integral part of
basic disciplines ranging from reading and math to art
and history," with the program being made "available to
adults in every community." This program uses a total
approach that every aspect of a student's life will be
touched, from economics to history and even art. That
is, "the impact of the Free Enterprise American Way in
our state will continue in our educational system." The
Florida Council says that "the American Free Enterprise
System is not a theory, it is a way of life" ("Free
Enterprise System" is capitalized in the original
text ) (Florida Council, Why?).
32
Persons and organizations not elected and
unconnected with the school districts have achieved
unusual control of the curriculum. That this power was
given rather than sought does not change the power they
hold. The F.C.E.E. gives mini-grants to school districts
to help develop the free enterprise act curriculum, but
the University of Florida has done most of the overall
course program development. In conjunction with the
grants, the Developmental Economic Education Program
(D.E.E.P.) is, in F.C.E.E. 's words, "a K-12 curriculum
project," giving materials and resources to school
districts for course planning around the F.E.C.E. Act.
Such includes teacher training programs, a library of
materials, and consultant time (F.C.E.E. Annual Report^
1981-1982, 6).
In the University of Florida's case, the F.C.E.E.
received a $250,000 grant from the state in 1982 to help
the university prepare the curriculum materials
(F.C.E.E. Annual Report, 13). Aside from the F.C.E.E.
itself, there exist under its aegis some eight
University Centers for Economic Education, each
developing curriculum materials for the free enterprise
act. It is the University of Florida's program that
provides the most complete and representative sample of
33
the type of curriculum one will see emerging from the
D.O.E. program (Annual Report, 1981-1982 7-8). The
course program, as seen above, is established by forces
representing organizations which occupy dominant
positions in the economy and which would be threatened
by a major change in the system.
Persons serving on the various boards and councils,
like the organizations from which they are drawn, are an
elite minority with a vested interest in the status quo.
There is.no pretense that these people are the agents of
democratic interest in the schools because they are not
representative. As for the F.C.E.E. the 34 member Board
of Trustees in 1981-1982 consisted of two attorneys,
eight school system bureaucrats, and 23 officers of
corporations. Only one union was represented, by the
president of the Florida A.F.L.-C. I .0. There was only
one woman, and there were no blacks. Except for only
four individuals, the rest of the published list of
contributors was made up of major corporations (Annual
Report 9-12). Corporations form a larger economic
structure maintaining entrenched and greatly skewed
wealth at both the national and state levels (Petersen,
Greever, North American Congress on Latin America,
Domhoff, Mills 292-297, Butcher).
34
The Florida Council represents only a part of the
economic power structure seeking to preserve "free
enterprise" through both public and private agencies.
Since the mid-1970s, the Florida Council of 100 has had
major input on state governmental policy. High state
governmental policy-makers frequently consult the
Council before arriving at decisions. This body consist
of numerous corporation heads, prominent attorneys,
members of the Board of Regents, and high level
bureaucrats. No labor organizations are represented.
Neither are any women. The chairman, vice-chairman,
secretary, and numerous other members of the Florida
Council on Economic Education are members of the Council
of 100 (F.C.E.E. Annual Report) .
Of immediate significance to the D.O.E. program is
how much influence business has over the course content
in the public schools. It is not necessary to prove any
recommendation any business group makes is biased or the
result of collusion. Business's interests are so clearly
associated with the status quo that their supervision of
the educational process (which must necessarily change
and evolve) is suspect before it takes place.
One could expect that the businessperson benefiting
from the present political economy would promote and
35
support the D.O.E. courses. It is said that the A.V.C.
program is needed to teach students about the
"fallacies" of communism. Yet, failing to balance the
criticisms with the many serious contradictions in the
U.S. system does not mean that the F.C.E..E. is teaching
students "how to think, NOT what to think (F.C.E.E.
Annual Report). Combating "communism" and teaching that
"free enterprise" is the best in the world suggest that
students accept the regime in power.
From the viewpoint of keeping the system stable,
the D.O.E. 's curriculum requirement is a calculated
action and not an unusual one insofar as a public school
social studies program goes. Students have the potential
for becoming sophisticated by comparing systems in a
balanced fashion. Florida's D.O.E. wants to avoid that
risk of developing a critical population when it
indoctrinates students with an unflinching loyalty to
the established order. Unquestioning approval and love
do not necessarily imply each other. Teaching a love for
one's country also means teaching civic responsibility,
and that emerges only by teaching that the citizenry can
and should freely criticize a country's
institutions .
social
36
The ideals espoused by the legislature have
democratic decision-making and the free enterprise
economy strongly linked. In this instance of the way the
D.O.E. curriculum is assembled, the decisions are made
in an undemocratic manner, and key persons who would
benefit from programs in critical thinking are not
affected. A well-formed apparatus outside a
democratically elected legislature is implementing a
curriculum that allows students only to put the "right"
answer on a D.O.E. exam. That the students must give
"right" answers suggests that while the D.O.E. attacks
communism for being ideological, the A.V.C. and F.E.C.E.
acts are egually so, a guestion examined in the next
chapter .
CHAPTER FOUR
WHY THE D.O.E. PROGRAM IS IDEOLOGICAL
The Issue of Ideology
D.O.E. 's Americanism versus Communism and Free
Enterprise courses constitute an indoctrination program.
Students cannot seriously challenge the intent and
content without risking failure. The curriculum is
inflexible; teachers must show that the U.S. has the
best system of economics in the world. The problem of
course content is raised when A.V.C. legislation says
that schools should "instill in the minds of the
students" the "evils" of communism and make them
understand that the U.S. "free enterprise" economy is
better "than any other system of economics on earth"
{Florida Revised Statutes 233.064). This indoctrination
is administered through the advice of a network of
nonelective boards and councils who have a vested
interest in resistance to change.
A D.O.E. handbook, A Resource Unit: Americanism
versus Communism^ says that in the Soviet Union a small
group of communist party members "does all the thinking"
and that "all individual opinions must conform to the
37
38
'Party Line'" (Florida State 35). Yet, the D.O.E. is
doing the same thing it is accusing the Communists of
doing, force-feeding a political economic doctrine. One
major reason for creating the A.V.C. course was that
legislators feared young people would not recognize that
communist beliefs were faulty, and their solution was to
tell students so (Florida State 18). Parallels can be
drawn between the denunciation of capitalism in Soviet
classrooms and lectures on the evils of communism in the
D.O.E. program. In the formulation of the Florida
program, there must have been a recognition of the
similarities so that it was felt necessary to prove
differentiation by saying that "philosophy" is superior
to "ideology." Yet, while the framers of the curriculum
set out with the best of intent to encourage students to
think critically, they ended with a program consisting
of elements they said they feared.
The D.O.E. says, "Ideology is a set of ideas
developed in a logical order on the basis of
preconceived notions which its adherents do not consider
open to criticism or even question." Ideology's opposite
is philosophy, "an attempt to approach the truth in
which basic assumptions may be questioned and critically
examined." (Florida State 18) Whether an idea can be
39
criticized--that is, subjected to critical thinking —
separates ideology from philosophy. Teaching students to
prefer philosophy over ideology, so the D.O.E. thinking
goes, will help the student to reject communism. The
D.O.E. wants the young to learn that the ideology of the
Communist Party "provides the communist with a false
belief about reality and that it advances the ideology
through rigid school programs not open to guestion"
(Florida State 34).
The D.O.E. makes much of the need to teach
"philosophy" in the schools in order to help students
understand the weakness and error of ideology. Some
consideration of the identification of these terms in
educational settings is in order.
How the D.O.E. Defines Ideology
Gerhart Niemeyer, the A.V.C. program's chief
architect, came to the cold war with impressive
credentials, and it is to his writings one turns for the
philosophy shaping the D.O.E. program. He was very much
a part of the prevailing political order, as his anti-
communist credentials included teaching "graduate
courses on Communist ideology" at prestigious
on
Communist ideology
40
universities like Yale, Princeton, and Columbia, being a
Planning Advisor with the State Department, a research
analyst with the Council on Foreign Relations, and
member of the resident faculty at the U.S. War College
(U.S. Congress, H.C.U.A. 14).
Niemeyer says that ideology means the total
rejection of any society based upon "subordination of
contemplative theory" and the adoption of dogmatically
willed positions. Philosophy "connotes theory,
contemplation born of the love of truth" (Niemeyer,
Between Nothingness and Paradise 142).
Ideologies, Niemeyer asserts, have assumed a number
of characteristics:
1) they are total critiques of society; the whole
existing order must be overturned so it can be replaced
by a new one. Ideologies prescribe as well as describe;
2) all previous phases of society in history are
rejected in favor of the projected or prescribed one;
3) ideologies claim that reason and logic
substantiate the argument in favor if ideology;
4) revolution and other events resulting in the
ideology's predominance occur as a result of natural
processes rather than being forced into history by
humans ;
41
5) understanding the natural processes by which the
ideological goal is reached requires "a specific and
secret knowledge made manifest by the thinker as
messenger .
Once the masses obtain the secret knowledge from
the ones who know, the old social order will fall.
(Niemeyer, Between 42-43). F)
With the advent of Marx and Engels, Niemeyer says
ideology assumed additional characteristics:
1) history results from natural processes or stages;
2) besides laws of change, there is an ultimate goal
where humanity attains a life with greater value;
3) by pitting the ideal future against the past,
the ideologues say that humanity has no desire to
identify with the past;
4) the ideological goal is not embodied in one
person or group but, rather it stands as something
obtainable only by humanity acting collectively.
(Niemeyer, Between 74-75).
The common thread of Niemeyer 's characterizations
of ideology is that a collectivity, once made conscious
of its conditions by information from one or a small
group of individuals, completely supplants the old order
with a new one as a result of naturally occurring
42
processes. Overturning of tradition worries Niemeyer, as
evidenced by his repeated denunciation of ideology for
rejecting the past (Niemeyer, Between 81-83).
Revolutionary changes are radical breaks with
tradition, and they are a most potent form of social
criticism. Often, leaders (usually intellectuals) of
major social movements have carefully-thought-out views
expressing sentiments widely held by the general
population. Despite Niemeyer 's claims, the details of
revolutionary ideas are not usually secret, but the
intellectuals holding them are in the minority because
formal education usually is beyond the economic means of
the average person. If the ideas are not subject to
criticism, however, the integrity of the intellectual is
at stake.
Niemeyer is preoccupied with the threat of ideology
to "the past"--i.e., to traditional systems--so much so
that he tends to slide into the error of seeing any
challenge to traditional as ideological. Critical
thinking about any social system is in fact a kind of
challenge .
43
What Mainstream Writers Say About Ideology
"Ideology" was a word first used by Antoine Louis
Clause Destutt de Tracy on 23 May 1797 in proposing a
new science of ideas before the French National
Institute of Arts and Sciences. By systematizing ideas
into an ideology, he claimed, the mysticism of the past
could be supplanted by reason. All of society's wrongs
could be eliminated by restructuring the school system
in order to institute an education founded upon the new
rational method of understanding called "ideology."
People's beliefs could be put into a well-defined order
and treated as a logical system, thereby mitigating
disagreements about the way a society was to be run
(Mannheim 71).
Both the French and American revolutions, along
with numerous other social upheavals, emphasized the
importance of idea systems in dealing with increasingly
structured and urbanized societies. Karl Marx and
Frederick Engels reinforced that importance in agreeing
with de Tracy by calling belief systems ideologies, but
went further by arguing that ruling classes used
ideology to instill a false consciousness in the masses
(Marx 25, 79). Marx and Engels held that the bourgeois
44
ideology, in particular, did not accurately describe
society. The dominant ideology was that of the ruling
class, and the bourgeois ruling class had described
society in a way that satisfied its own needs. Those
people who make the major decisions about how society is
to be run propound the dominant ideas, or, as stated by
Marx and Engels, "the ideas of the ruling class are in
every epoch the ruling ideas" (Marx 47). Marx and Engels
argued that it is an illusion to think that these
dominant ideas can never change, for people can always
opt for revolution. Often, the ruling ideas are
"expressed as an eternal law," or as morality and rights
(Marx 47). For Marx and Engels, the tool of ideology is
usually biased, while for de Tracy, it is a technigue to
describe actuality.
Karl Mannheim in Ideology and Utopia says that
ideology is a set of ideas imposed upon a society by the
ruling class and is, to a certain extent, illusory
(Mannheim 8, 193). Ideology reflects a person's class
status, as well as his discontent with society. These
belief systems may admit to social discontent but often
attribute false reasons for it. Often the ruling class
will lay the blame for social problems on things
entirely distinct from the actual causes. When a person
45
holds ideas which prevent effective action, the belief
system constitutes an ideology (Mannheim 194).
Otherwise, if the person can act effectively within
society (political participation, interacting with
social institutions, etc.) in spite of the ideas, the
idea system is a utopia (Mannheim 204).
For Mannheim, ideology is reactionary because
people cannot effectively express their social
aspirations. Reality is always changing, and a person
can easily become ideological by not changing with that
reality. Utopian or ideological, ideas do not accurately
portray reality because the people holding them are
biased. Other writers, discussed below, substantiate
Mannheim by saying that ideology hinders change, blocks
understanding, and reinforces the traditionalism favored
by Niemeyer (Ries 290, Harrington 348-349, Hodges 377).
Lewis Fuer calls ideologies "works of presumption.
An ideology," he says, "projects wish fulfillments where
knowledge is unavailable." It is "an attempt ... to
impose one's political will upon the nature of the
universe" (Fuer 64). Daniel Bell refers to ideology as
"a secular religion . . . the conversion of social ideas
into levers. It is the commitment to the consequences of
ideas" (Bell 96). Ideologies ask one "to accept a
46
reading of events." Ideologies do not contain knowledge
of events "but their 'true' meaning." In this sense,
ideologies, says Irving Kristol, "are religions of a
sort" (Kristol 108). To Raymond Ries, ideology is "the
insistence that knowledge of society must act as an
instrument of social change. It is something to believe
in . . . analogous to religious commitment." (Ries 283)
For another writer, "Ideology consists both of that form
of consciousness and also of that way of interpreting
and understanding the world, which justifies or
maintains specific relations of power" (Lilienfeld 260).
Not all persons hold the view that ideology is
undesirable. C. Wright Mills, Robert Haber, and Michael
Harrington see the value of an ideology as a way of
clarifying political issues and motivating people to act
for social change (Mills 131, Haber 186, Harrington
342). As a type of compromise between ideology as an
inhibition to human understanding and as a neutral way
of analyzing social phenomenon, Maurice Cornforth views
ideology as being a useful expression of a "profound
impulse to development." However, as a class takes
power, the ideology becomes conservative, then
reactionary, and ultimately deleterious to human
development (Cornforth 91-92). While these last four
47
views take de Tracy's positive approach to ideology,
none of these writers would favor ideology if it was
used to stifle understanding and an improvement of
society.
All these writers agree that ideology is at least a
system of ideas about a social situation. However, Marx,
Engels, and especially Mannheim provide the foundation
for the view held by many modern writers that an
ideology is a non-critical way of thinking. For example,
Donald Clark Hodges holds that ideology "can be
identified with the more or less conscious deceptions
and disguises of human interest groups" (Hodges 374).
While people disagree about the detailed characteristics
of ideology and what roles it should play, most view
ideology as a pejorative name for a set of ideas held by
someone with a closed or uncritical mind.
On the surface, Niemeyer rejects ideology because
of its close-minded approach, a view not especially
unique or significantly deviant from the other writers
Marx clarifies these concerns by stating that ideology
is a false consciousness when reality changes and
thinking about it does not. If anything, it is ironic
that this aspect of Niemeyer 's position on ideology is
more like that of Marx in that holding rigidly set ideas
48
is counterproductive to understanding how society
functions. In other words, the worst feature of ideology
is that it obstructs clear thinking. Non-critical
thinking and rigid bias are the two senses of ideology
that Niemeyer presumably dislikes, and Marx's criticisms
of ideology are grounded in the failure to assess
critically one's biased thinking about political
economies .
Niemeyer faults the ideologues for grounding their
system of beliefs in a logic void of critical thinking.
While he says ideology is dogmatic, his
characterization and real objection to it centers about
people behaving normally by rejecting what has been done
to them in the past and opting for a change. For its
part, the D.O.E. claims to favor critical thinking. A
discrepancy exists between advocating critical thinking
and promoting the D.O.E. indoctrination program to
preserve traditional economic systems. A great deal of
critical thought went into shaping the rationale for the
D.O.E. program, but that thought was shaped within the
confines of a rigid conservative philosophy. The next
chapter demonstrates how this philosophy allows the
D.O.E. to espouse critical thinking as superior to
ideology and still defend the indoctrination program.
CHAPTER FIVE
THE D.O.E.'S DEBT TO CONSERVATIVE PHILOSOPHY
Niemeyer's Philosophy
Many public school social studies curricula are
ideological. That, in itself, is not very interesting.
What elicits concern is the pragmatic and philosophic
reasons explaining why the ideologues want to install
their agenda. Frank S. Meyer, an author appearing on the
A.V.C. book list, says that the importance of ideology
lies not so much with its content as with the attempt to
change a social order with that content (Meyer
"Consensus" 230-231). Reinforcing their program is the
fact the average workplace, where so many people spend
over half their waking hours, can be described as
authoritarian and even worse oppressive. By what they
say and the nature of their position those controlling
the workplace and other key segments of the economy have
a practical reason for favoring ideology. Without
critical thinking workers are more docile and yielding
to the demands of bosses. The less apparent philosophy
bespeaks a special brand of conservatism underscoring
the D.O.E. ideology justifying the U.S. system.
49
50
Gerhart Niemeyer's conservative thinking permeates
the rationale for the curriculum, and he is transparent
about the society he would like to see. While the
architect of the original D.O.E. program, he expressed
his principal motive for opposing communism and
establishing a new order in Facts on Communism prepared
by the defunct H.U.A.C. and forming part of the A.V.C.
curriculum bibliography. Niemeyer says that communism
is held out " . . . for many who want something to
replace the notion of Providence and divine judgment"
(U.S. Congress, H.C.U.A. 128). The core of his attack on
communism is that "the rejection of religion is thus the
very essence of Communist thinking" (U.S. Congress,
H.C.U.A. 133). This doctrine is entirely consistent
with and made relevant for close examination by the
Americanist doctrine which "recognizes the existence of
a God and the all-important fact that the fundam.ental
rights of man are derived from God and not from any
other source" (U.S. Congress, H.C.U.A. 65). Human beings
do not accord themselves fundamental rights either by
democratic elections or revolution.
Niemeyer also rejects communism because "It . . .
means the explanation of all things and happenings in
terms of a supposedly ultimately material reality (U.S.
51
Congress, H.C.U.A. 127). Underlying this objection is
the rejection of materialism, itself, for it is " . . .
the deliberate rejection of God. Rejecting God means
rejecting the idea that the material world is the
creation of a divine spirit (U.S. Congress, H.C.U.A.
125). Niemeyer discusses both political and religious
instruments for bringing about a society based upon this
view.
He makes clear who should run society and what they
should do. In Law Without Force he states that the
chief ends of a political entity are to "struggle for
the definition of . . . ends" (Niemeyer, Law 125). While
many views always exist in a society, "the group which
is agreed upon the prevailing definition of the State's
ends does not embrace more than a section, possibly
only a minority, of the entire 'membership' of the
organization" {Law 121). The "unity of common aims among
the persons of that dominating group . . . makes an
organization of social coordination possible."
Political organizations coalesce around a prevailing
definition of functional ends, and the definition set by
the dominating group in the organization "represents in
some way the entire 'membership' because it provides
52
the concrete formulation of the ends of State functions,
without which no organization could operate at all"
(Law 122 ) .
As to those functions, Nieraeyer says that "politics
coordinates behavior, not lives; it brings forth
collective action, not collective culture; its unity is
one of function, not of being. Politics is performance,
not existence" (Niemeyer, Law 127). The "... behavior
that corresponds to the scheme of order must not only be
decided upon, but also must actually be provoked and
arranged for by practical acts and personal contact." A
greater spiritual and social homogeneity facilitates a
people's understanding of aims of the political
institution. There ". . . must be some community of
intention in a collectivity, if there is to be an
organization" (Law 128-130).
The chief difference between the polity that
Niemeyer envisions and the ones created by Hitler and
Mussolini is that, in the former, the political
organization acts upon a community's preconceived ideas,
whereas in the latter, the State sets the reasons for
which the State operates. In the former, the uniformity
of purpose is present; in the latter, the State imposes
the uniformity of purpose (Niemeyer, Law 131). The way
53
people regard the nature of human existence comprises
the scheme of order acted upon by political
organizations. Achieving that unity of purpose and
scheme of order is left to another device--religion . He
introduces this instrument first by reiterating his
disassociation from others having designs for a unified
social order and then by substituting a metaphysics
rooted in classical philosophy.
Niemeyer, in Between Nothingness and Paradise,
reiterates his criticism of totalitarian ideologies and
communism for reputedly not wanting to preserve anything
of the past or present (Niemeyer, Between 136-140). He
then outlines his "Ethics of Existence" that provides
the common purpose to be orchestrated by the State.
Conservatives want to preserve the past, and, as
Niemeyer says, "A political community abides in time,
stabilizing the samene s s of truth in the flux of
temporal vicissitudes and thus, as we have seen,
'imitating eternity'" (183). "Eternity," the reader is
told, means "participation in the divine ground" (184).
As reflected by the Declaration of Independence's words
"We hold these truths to be self evident" (189-191).
Myth, ". . . any set of symbols through which a
multitude of people, living together, symbolically
54
secure the transparency of life and awareness of
participation in the divine ground," holds the polity
together. Niemeyer then justifies an authoritarian
order by indicating that critical thinking would destroy
the polity.
He states that the average American is "uncritical
in the ways of myths;" without myth, there would prevail
"the universal assumption of hostility," that is,
anarchy (Niemeyer, Between 191). People bear a myth and
"serve as the organ of representation of the public
truth which is what gives authority to the vox populi."
The public truth is subject to "laws of vitality" that
"pertain to the area of complex tensions between
consciousness and the divine ground, psyche and nous,
and to the general relation of things mutable to
eternity ( 193 ) .
Quoting Aristotle, Niemeyer says the nous is "the
best part of us . . . whether it is itself divine, or
the most divine thing in us" and is "the source of order
through the participation in the divine ground . . . "
(Niemeyer 195). The edifice of political order, says
Niemeyer, rests upon Aristotle's notion of friendship as
related to "noetic consciousness of participation in the
divine ground" (196). A person constantly thinking
55
critically about the prevailing myths, divine order, and
so forth would be seriously out of place in Nieraeyer's
ideal society.
Human beings, so that life will be attractive, must
recognize that unity is composed of the rational and the
irrational and balance the two. A "vital power"
sustains the "psychology of memories, mutual
attractions, unified feelings, and hopeful impulses."
The intellectual element of friendship is "the
consciousness of a higher ineffability through which man
is rightly ordered." To have a political community
everyone must be equal in that their souls are "open to
the divine and, for the sake of the divine, open to
those who are equal." Carrying the critique of critical
thinking further, he says that political aspirations
mean that "friendship cements an entity of political
existence and engenders the wish to preserve it,
'whatever it may be.'" Sustaining a political tradition
is "homonoia, the capacity to be of the same mind, which
renders possible the making of laws and taking action in
history" (Niemeyer Between 197). Niemeyer is very clear
about what that same mind focuses upon.
He sympathizes with Aristotle in saying that ethics
means centering ". . . man's orientation towards the
56
divine and love of that in man which is closest to God
and through which men participate in the order of being
(Niemeyer, Between 198). This consciousness of the
divine is the highest political value, followed by group
preservation, similar judgments and attitudes, and
finally, "the enjoyment of common existence" (198).
Niemeyer vehemently deplores modern religion ( "modern
civil theologies") for de-emphasizing "human
participation in the divine." These theologies merely
give ideological postulates and propositions that
"totally lack the existential virtues of friendship,
communal solidarity, and public goodwill" (200).
In these writings, Niemeyer argues for a State
which is the instrument of a common theological purpose.
Every action, every thought, every appearance, if not in
accordance with the ruling theocrat's idea of "divine
participation" is inimical to the well-being of the
polity. Niemeyer says without qualification that every
"individual soul . . . knows the tension of the person
towards God, and of the soul as the 'sensorium of
transcendence'," meaning that he does not acknowledge
persons not recognizing a god (atheists) and those not
agreeing with the notion of a transcendent entity
(Niemeyer, Between 192).
57
When the legislature says school teachers shall
practice "every Christian virtue," non-Christian
teachers, such as Moslems, Jews, or atheists, would be
violating the law by refusing to abide by that
theocratic mandate (Florida Revised Statutes 233.09).
Yet, to Niemeyer, the legislature would be "righteous"
because it requires the teachers to participate in his
"divine ground" of being by teaching Christian virtues.
The extant A.V.C. law evidences the Florida
legislature's support for Niemeyer 's claim that "people
are uncritical in the ways of myths" and that the State
should coordinate the behavior of individuals.
Despite his apparent wish that everyone should
march lockstep in pursuing a divine order, Niemeyer does
not characterize his view of an ideal polity as a
totalitarian theocracy. His avowed staunch opposition
to ideology, advocacy of philosophy in the A.V.C.
program, and subscription to Aristotelian ethics might
lead one to believe that he would be comfortable with
Athenian democracy insofar as having everyone equally
participating in a divine order of being is concerned.
Yet, Niemeyer avoids using the word "democracy" in
reference to Athens or in his recommendations for an ideal
society, while other conservatives freely use it.
58
A discussion of democracy is useful in
understanding why Niemeyer really argues for
authoritarianism while claiming to support critical
thinking in the D.O.E. program and why other
conservatives with views similar to Niemeyer 's argue for
democracy. The opposite of an authoritarian workplace
is a democratic one, and effective workplace democracy
means practicing critical thinking. That is so if
democracy means each individual should participate in
deciding how society should be run and if effective
participation means the individual must be-well informed
and willing to keep an open or critical mind. The way
conservatives qualify their use of the word "democracy"
shows how they view the workplace and justify the current
system.
Classical Foundations of the D.O.E. Ideology
Both the D.O.E. 's political A.V.C. and economic
F.E.A. curricula emanate from Niemeyer's philosophy
about why societies exist and who should decide
policies. To elucidate this statement, it helps to
discuss how the D.O.E. ideologues characterize the U.S.
system. Behind the words they use lies the philosophy
59
that goes into shaping the indoctrination program. The
D.O.E. economic material refers to the U.S. as
"capitalistic" or "free enterprise," that is, reflecting
the classical liberal economics of the writings of John
Locke .
However, the philosophy of the economic system is
further clarified by the manner in which the ideologues
say people should behave politically. Niemeyer
concentrates heavily on Aristotelian ethics without
mentioning democracy. D.O.E. ideologues are ambivalent
about using the word, and how they discuss it suggests a
starting point for discussing the philosophy of the
D.O.E. ideology.
The D.O.E. itself conspicuously minimizes its
references to democracy. Frank S. Meyer, a conservative
author on the A.V.C. reading list, says that the
"Liberal's faith is in 'democracy'" and insists upon
calling the U.S. only a republic (Meyer, "Consensus"
230). Others on that list, like J. Edgar Hoover,
interrupt this trend by frequently referring to the U.S.
system as a democracy (Hoover 320). Communism is
contrasted in the A.V.C. law not to "democracy" but to
the "principles of Constitutional Governmient ... as
epitomized in its National Constitution (Florida
60
Statutes 233.064(a)). The Declaration of Independence
and Constitution use "Republic" but not "democracy."
One theoretically may find "democratic processes"
within Americanism, but Americanism, itself, is not
necessarily considered democratic by the conservatives
involved in formulating the D.O.E. program.
Only when one examines the social studies texts on
the D.O.E. adopted textbook list do the copious
references to "democracy" appear. Magruder ' s American
Government is a widely used text both nationwide and in
Florida (McClenaghan ) . Besides discussing direct
democracy and representative democracy, the text
mentions the debate between those who claim that the
United States is a republic rather than a democracy. In
a republic, those in power are representatives of the
people as electorate. People in democracy decide issues
directly. As used by Magruder and "To most Americans
the terms democracy, republic, representative democracy,
and republican form of government generally mean the
same thing" (McClenaghan 28).
Democracy and republic are philosophically
different, and while conservatives disagree about when
to use the terms they are united in supporting the
D.O.E. doctrine when it comes to the participation in
61
Niemeyer's divine order. One writer on the A.V.C. book
list calls it an "organic moral order" but governed by
people "subject to the effects of original sin" (Meyer
"Consensus" 14-16). This unity of support despite the
division over theory is clarified, first, by exploring
the classical democracy and republic, second, with the
views of several conservative writers on the D.O.E.
A.V.C. bibliography, and, third by what other
conservatives say about the nature of democracy.
In describing the classical republic, Plato says
tyranny emanates from democracy and warring among
economic classes. Only if ruling people possess virtue
can it thrive in the State. Rulers acquire the ability
to rule by education and intense preparation. Training
the guardians of the State must begin from youth and
culminate with leaders endowed with the philosophical
perspective and ability to guide society smoothly (Plato
564b) . The common person does not have a role in
running the affairs of state. Each person in society is
consigned his or her work in accordance with training
and background.
Aristotle mentions five types of democracy: one
based on strict equal ity--the poor having the same
advantages as the rich and everyone sharing power in the
62
government; another where magistrates are elected
according to minimal property qualifications; a third
which requires that the law be supreme over the citizens
who share equal power in the government; a fourth, where
admission to the government occurs only if one is a
citizen and is subject to the law, and, finally, one
where the majority rules in all respects and rules by
decree (Aristotle 1291b 30 to 1292b 38). The type to be
emphasized depends upon the aims of the State.
People band together in a community, or
constitution (the partnership being the State), which
must work its way to perfection, or, in Niemeyer's
sense, participate in the divine ground of being. A
state's purpose is for the "good life," making sure that
citizens do not do injustice to each other and promoting
virtue (Aristotle 1880a). When every member of the
community, that is, every citizen, practices virtue,
then the whole State can be perfect (virtue being every
individual doing the best he can) ( 1276b 30). This is
not unlike Niemeyer's saying that the State coordinates
the people's behavior. Upon Aristotle's notion of who
can be virtuous and be a citizen hinges the real meaning
of classical democracy, a democracy quite compatible
with that promoted by the D.O.E. program*.
63
Aristotle in Politics says, "He who has the power
to take part in the deliberative or judicial
administration of any state is said by us to be a
citizen
of that
state" (1275b
19).
The virtues of a
citizen
are to be
capable of
ruling
and obeying "like a
freeman .
" Not all people
can
be
citizens, for "we
cannot
consider
all those
to
be
citizens who are
necessary to the
existence
of
the
state" (1278a 2 ) .
"The necessary people are either slaves who minister to
the wants of individuals, or mechanics and laborers who
are the servants of the community" (1278a 7-10). To be
a citizen in a democracy one must be virtuous, but
Aristotle says, "No man can practice virtue who is
living the life of a mechanic or laborer" (1278a 20).
Citizenship and the opportunity to attain power
were functions of class status. If one argues that the
present political system is rooted in Aristotle's
concepts of democracy, it is understandable why wage
workers are barred from policymaking positions as they
do not constitute a proportionate part of Florida's
legislature. Niemeyer is not arguing for democracy and
is not saying that people should not be disenfranchised
because of a tenet of classical democratic theory. His
64
concept of a person's role in society is founded in a
special type social cohesion centered about a theocratic
purpose .
Nieineyer faults Athens not for barring workers from
the political process but by saying that Socrates
demonstrated " . . . that not man but God is the
measure of human thoughts and actions" and . . that
political order is a matter not of wealth and success
but of participation in the order of being as well as
participation in the concrete reality of Athens,"
Socrates was "admonishing Athens in the name of God" to
"return to the divine ground of being . . ." (Niem^eyer,
Between 213). Like Plato and Aristotle, Niemeyer does
not see the average person as inherently fit to govern,
and neither a republic nor a democracy is enough to
sustain his ideal of universal participation in a divine
ground of being. Socrates' criticism forms the basis of
what Niemeyer and other like-minded conservatives want.
Alexis de Toqueville, the often-quoted critic of
democracy from the last century, articulates many of the
conservative ideas shaping the thinking behind the
D.O.E. program. De Toqueville states ". . . if a
democratic republic . . . had. . . sunk deep into the
habits and laws of the people ... a more insufferable
65
despotism would (not) prevail ... in any of the
absolute monarchies of Europe" ( de Toqueville 123).
Democracy requires a thoughtful population, but he says
that "studies of this nature (of philosophy) are far
above the average capacity of men" (150). Views like
these, coupled with Niemeyer's assertions that people
are "uncritical in the ways of myths," help show the
anti-critical nature of the D.O.E. program.
The Authoritarian Basis of the D.O.E. Program
De Toqueville said, "Fixed ideas about God and
human nature are indispensable to the daily practice of
men's lives." Religion is necessary because it
justifies the system and establishes the principle of
authority. "When the religion of a people is destroyed,
doubt gets hold of the higher powers of the intellect
and half paralyzes all the others" (de Toqueville 150-
151). People are not philosophically sophisticated and
de Toqueville's statement would justify Niemeyer's
argument that a humans being's main function in society
is to participate in a divine order of being rather than
to create his own well-thought-out order. Niemeyer
states, "Man's nature, created good, has been vitiated
66
by his sinful opposition to the Creator . . . the
resulting distortions of body, mind, emotions and soul
. . . impart ... a yearning, a return to God" (Niemeyer
Between 218). D.O.E. reflects Niemeyer's view that
humanity depends upon religion by saying that the
principle of
human dignity comes
from
"a living
and
merciful God
" (Florida State 2)
and
that love
and
respect for
one's country comes
when
" children
and
teachers engage in daily Bible reading" (5). J. Edgar
Hoover in Masters of Deceit, on the A.V.C. book list,
said that "The very essence of our faith in democracy
is rooted in a belief in a Supreme Being" (Hoover 320).
Religious dogma stands behind the authoritarian
character of the conservative views of the State and the
D.O.E. program, itself.
Frank S. Meyer, also on A.V.C. book list, faults
the libertarian (a type of conservative, according to
Meyer) for the "confusion of the temporal with the
transcendental" in that he could not distinguish between
the human authority that suppresses freedom and "the
authority of God and truth." (emphasis included)
Nineteenth century conservatives, while "They respected
the authority of God and of truth," gave human
institutions "the sacred aura of divine authority."
67
Classical liberals were not aware of "the reality of
original sin" and looked to the state to promote virtue.
Collectivism challenges a person's "transcendent dignity
. . . and common faith" (Meyer, "The Common Cause" 16-
19). All conservatives, says Meyer, accept implicitly
or explicitly, the existence of an objective moral order
• . . based on . . . the existence of immutable
standards by which human conduct should be judged." The
objection to ideology means that "the existence of
immutable laws are not susceptible to ideological
reconstruction." Ideology, then, is not the existing
dogma of "ordered liberty" but the attempt to change
that dogma with a new set of ideas" (Meyer, "Consensus"
230-231) .
Hoover refers to one of the "aspects of our
democratic faith" (sic) as "belief that life has a
meaning that transcends any manmade system." It is
independent of any such system, and "outlasts any such
system, a belief diametrically opposed by the
materialistic dogma of communism." J. Edgar Hoover said
that communism is opposed to religion and "poses today a
crucial problem for every patriotic man and woman in
America. If allowed to develop, it will destroy our way
of life" (Hoover 320-321). "Out of the deep roots of
68
religion ... is the source of strength for our land if
we are to remain free" (330).
Hoover hypothesized, "Suppose every American spent
a little time each day, less than the time demanded by
the communist, in studying the Bible and the basic
documents of American history, government and culture?"
The late F.B.I. director, not making any distinction
between democracy or republic, restates Niemeyer's
vision by calling for "a new America, vigilant, strong,
but ever humble in the service of God." Echoing de
Toqueville, Hoover remarks at the end "All we need is
faith, real faith. . . . With God's help, America will
remain a land where people still know how to be free and
brave" (emphasis included) (Hoover 334-337).
The thinking behind the widespread ideology of
which that of the D.O.E. is representative is elucidated
further by how other conservatives argue that religion
forms the basis of the State. Russell Kirk asserts that
"Civilized man lives by authority; without some
reference to authority, indeed no form of human
existence is possible." That authority is a deity, the
Judeo-Christian God, . . . understood through the human
conscience. "Genuinely ordered freedomi is the only sort
of liberty worth having" (Kirk 23-25). Liberty is
69
ordered freedom, and freedom is that granted by a deity.
Kirk justifies the Republic by referring to "a
government which prefers principle to ideology, " and by
saying "the philosophical and moral structure of our
civil order was rooted in the Christian faith, not in
the worship of Reason" (Kirk, 37). Faith, rather than
philosophical understanding, explains and justifies
events and institutions.
According to M. Stanton Evans, the conservative
agrees with authoritarians in that people cannot be
trusted, and wants "to restrain the destructive
tendencies he discerns in a fallen humanity" (Evans 74).
Fallen humanity refers to Adam and Eve committing "sin"
by eating from the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge in the
Garden of Eden myth. Fundamentalist Christians refer to
the "Fall" in supporting their claim that people are
inherently evil. Evans has little disagreement about
this view of "human nature." Quoting conservative
writer Ortega y Gasset, Evans says that people are
"forced by (their) nature to seek some higher authority"
(71). The freedom granted by higher authority gives
people the right to choose according to how one affirms
a "transcendent order" (69).
70
The Role of Religion and Faith in the D.O.E. Ideology
Religion and faith are called upon frequently to
rationalize the political-economic system. Examples
abound, ranging from what Florida's D.O.E. is doing to
impose religion to pronouncements made by national
leaders. In Florida, the A.V.C. curriculum handbook
says that the principle of individual dignity comes
"from the acknowledgment of a living and merciful God
and recognition of man's immortal soul." Further on,
readers are told, "It is easier to distrust than to have
faith. The fight against the communist conspiracy"
demands an appropriate perspective; it is a battle where
one is "fighting for faith." A very important lesson one
learns in fighting communism, says the D.O.E. "is that
of faith" (Florida State 2, 11, 16).
Christianity is the official religion in Florida.
Legislation entitled "Duties of Instructional Personnel"
mandates that teachers set an example for pupils, mainly
by practicing "... every Christian virtue" (Florida
Statutes 231.09(2)). The 1980 law "permitting study of
the Bible and religion," and where, U.S. Supreme Court
in 1963 ruling to the contrary, the "The school board
71
may provide that a brief period for " . . . the
purpose of silent prayer or meditation" was still in
effect in 1988" (Florida Statutes 233.062).
Public advocacy of the injection of religion into
government on a national level reinforces D.O.E.
philosophy. In a 1984 prayer breakfast speech President
Reagan said that the church " . . . has had a strong
influence on the state," that ". . . the bedrock of
moral order is religion," and "... politics and
morality are inseparable." Because the foundation of
morality is religion "religion and politics are
necessarily related . . . And our Government needs the
Church because only those humble enough to admit they
are sinners can bring democracy the tolerance it
requires in order to survive." Although Reagan claimed
that the was not trying to establish religion in the
U.S., he vowed that ". . .we poison society when we
remove its theological underpinnings" ("Remarks by
President"). In 1983, he said that the Soviet Union was
the "focus of evil in the modern worldd." (Clines)
Webster's dictionary gives several general synonyms for
"evil," and the context of each of these usages suggests
that the word means "Satanic." Besides the persistent
references to "God" in the Declaration of Independence,
72
the U.S. currency is constant reminder that "In God We
Trust." "Under God" was put into the pledge of
allegiance in the 1950s. Faith as a rationale for
political and economic policy carries far-ranging
structural consequences for the system.
Patrick Buchanan, Reagan's communications director
and President Nixon's assistant, is quite unequivocal in
his call for a U.S. theocracy. In a column "The Crisis
of Godlessness," he calls the U.S. "a supposedly
Christian country" and regards as mere "taunts" the view
that Christian values may be imposed upon others "The
Old and New Testament are not only infallible guides to
personal salvation; they contain the prescriptions for
just laws and the good society for building a city set
upon a hill." For that society, "Religion is the root
of morality, and morality is the basis of law." In
asking, "Whose country is this, anyway?" Buchanan says
the only thing the traditionalist and the conservative
can do "is never to cease struggling--until we have
recreated a government and an America that conforms, as
close as possible, to our image of a good society, if
you will, a godly country" (Buchanan).
Conservative policy makers create and sustain a
social hierarchy that oppresses workers on the job. Such
73
conservatives as those setting up the D.O.E. program
hold that religion (formulating ideas out of faith) is
inseparable from political-economic decision-making and
that the majority of people make decisions based on
faith rather than critical thinking. Individuals taught
think critically rather than to rely upon faith alone
are more likely to question social arrangements. The
conservatives are willing to suppress efforts to change
an authoritarian system while still advocating "freedom"
because of their conception of freedom and liberty.
How Freedom And Liberty Help Shape the D.O.E. Ideology
In political science terms, freedoms (as
expressions of rights) are human actions resulting from
a person's will to act, as opposed to liberties, or the
individual's ability to act within societal constraints
(Dye). This nice distinction introduces some very
fundamental assumptions about the role of government and
how the power for an individual to act is derived. With
freedom, the power to act comes from natural rights
granted from outside the society, and in the case of
liberty, the state determines the limits of human
action. The H.U.A.C. statement on Americanism refers to
74
natural rights, not liberties. Freedom is granted by a
deity and cannot be questioned, whereas liberty, being
defined by human society, can. When the Constitution
speaks of liberties in its Preamble it talks of what the
State allows people to do and not their "natural" god-
given freedoms.
The D.O.E. literature treats "freedom" and
"liberty" as synonyms. In the application of their
theories, however, the definition of these terms is
obviously that of political science as discussed in
Power and Society by Thomas Dye. Freedom is an inherent
right to act in a manner prompted by a person's will. It
is natural and derived from a source outside society,
from the deity. Liberty, on the other hand, represents
society's definition of a person's right to act within
the concept of the group.
This nice distinction may be observed historically
in the Declaration of Independence in which the rights
granted by the Creator are freedoms justifying
revolution, and rights of the Constitution are legally
defined permissions to act granted by the State. The
H.U.A.C. lists freedom of worship as a natural right
(i.e., a right granted by God). The exercise of that
freedom, however, becomes subject to State control when
75
the State defines what is acceptable religion. In a
theocracy, a State which defines itself as being subject
to a particular god and no other, the "freedom" to
practice religion becomes the "liberty" to behave
publicly in a manner acceptable to the worship of that
god. Freedom becomes indistinguishable from liberty
since both are subject to the sacerdotes' whims.
Freedom allows critical thinking and resulting
action without limit, while liberty imposes restrictions
to actions. In an oppressive state, where there is very
little liberty, the presumption is that while people may
criticize the state in private they should not accompany
the thoughts by appropriate deeds. A leadership with
specified ends in mind will act in its best interests by
emphasizing liberties. Religion acts as a convenient
device for allowing an advocacy of freedom but excusing
its curtailment. On one hand, a theocratic regime is
liberal because of that advocacy but autocratic in
deferring to a deity's commands restricting liberties.
While one does not find this degree of
sophistication in the D.O.E. program, because that
agency uses "liberty" and "freedom" interchangeably, the
authoritarianism exists because of religion's role in
restricting both, as in legislating morality. If
76
students are to think critically, the program's
ideologues would like to have them do so only within
certain bounds, such as those set by Niemeyer's
theocracy. This is demonstrated by the repeated
references to "critical" in its A.V.C. curriculum
handbook. For example, teachers are implored to "stir up
student's interest and critical faculties . . . ."
However, teachers must emphasize the "evils, fallacies
and contradictions of communism" (Florida State 13-14).
Students must learn, according to the A.V.C. statutes,
that the U.S. system is the best on earth.
Critical Thinking As A Part of the D.O.E. Program
Given the D.O.E. ideologue's view that faith
underpins the polity and that liberty circumscribes
freedom of discussion, promotion of critical thinking
and philosophy is not the real aim of the program
mandated in Florida schools, even though lip service is
paid to it. No process of critical analysis is implied
when the conclusions of instruction are predetermined.
As recently as 1987, the D.O.E. iterates that the "free
enterprise" U.S. economy provides "the highest standard
of living of any nation in the world" and requires that
77
it should be defended against all others (Goddard et
al . , CH-310 35) .
The educational material thus defines not only the
premise to be studied but the conclusion which must be
reached. Any debate under such circumstances has to be a
sham. Even the criteria are prescribed. That is best
which provides the most goods and services in the
marketplace in which the individual is free to exercise
choice. There is no opportunity to define terms.
It should not be necessary to do more than point to
these obvious flaws in the D.O.E. program to know its
weakness. However, there are issues involved in any
society's efforts to achieve the best lives for its
citizens that are eliminated from consideration in the
Florida Schools, either directly or tacitly. The
D.O.E. 's insistence that critical thinking is necessary
for human dignity suggests that the standards for
judging the quality of an economic system must include
the power of a person to think and act accordingly in
the workplace. "Critical" means being "more imaginative"
but thinking critically and making decisions have
special meanings apparently in the economic arena.
Much is made throughout the instructional program
of the freedom the student will have to make choices
78
when he has graduated. To teach that he will have the
right to many choices is perhaps misleading. It would be
easy to offer long lists of what he is not free to buy:
methanol is not a choice at most service stations, for
example, nor are parts for many otherwise reparable
machines. His freedom to choose his work is limited by
the positions employers offer. Steel workers have few
chances to make steel in 1988 America. These are not the
most important exceptions to the opportunity to make
critical choices. A major part of the ideology's
rationale seems to be that the average worker should not
participate in making decisions about what is to be
produced, who shall get paid what, or how enterprises
shall be operated. The curriculum's version of free
choice centers primarily about choosing goods and
services, pursuing careers, and the opportunity to sell
goods for a profit (Goddard et al., CH-310 33-34).
When the students encounter the workplace, they
often work without the opportunity to participate in
meaningful decision-making. The majority of workers then
must work for an already established concern. Taking a
position that they did not help define, they give up
some control over their own lives (Bowles 90). Giving
up control over one's life for a third of one's waking
79
hours is counter to the idea that one should think and
act critically. A major part of a person's identity as a
dignified individual is, as the D.O.E. admits, "free
access to all different competing viewpoints," a liberty
society should allow. Dignity also means being able to
act on one's thoughts, or the freedom conservatives
consider as a divine right becomes meaningless. The
D.O.E. translates this into political terms, that is,
"Government is the creation of the people, and its power
rests with them, " but it does not clarify how freedom is
to permeate the workplace (Florida State 4). The
D.O.E. 's ideology of Americanism says that worker's
. inalienable rights . . . are . . . freedom to
enjoy the fruits of his work, which means the protection
of his property rights" (65). A person possesses miental
power as property, including the power to think, and the
way the D.O.E. says the person should use that power and
for whose benefit tells one reason why the conservatives
behind the D.O.E. program defend "free enterprise."
In classical liberal economics, upon which much of
the free enterprise ideology is based, freedom depends
upon possessing property. For the D.O.E. a central
difference between a capitalist system and a socialist
system is the right to private ownership of productive
80
property. "This privilege is based on the belief that
people are entitled to keep the rewards from their labor
or their business efforts" (Goddard et al., CH-310 32-
33). The philosophical basis of this can be found when
John Locke, a classical liberal political economist,
opined " . . . it is very easie to conceive without any
difficulty, how Labor could first begin a title of
Property" (Locke 344).
However, the implications of Locke's views go
further than what the D.O.E. intended in adopting his
arguments in favor of property. In casting aside
whether a person may not receive virtually all material
fruits of labor, Locke's views on property, insofar as
applying to how a worker may benefit through mental
labor as critical thinking, help explicate how "free
enterprise" treats the dignity of the individual as a
function of thinking and acting freely in the workplace.
Locke said that a worker mixes his or her
existence, or life, with objects in order to transform
those objects into useful things. When produced solely
by the individual in this society, these objects become
the person's property (Locke 330-332). Life, if one is
to accept Aristotle, involves individuals being
inexorably linked with property, and if that property is
81
taken away from them without due compensation, part of
that person's identity is lost. There exist many
questions concerning property and "rights" which are
ignored in the D.O.E. program, possibly because critical
thought about them could lead to questioning of the
justice of the U.S. system.
Karl Marx said "the secret of the self-expansion of
capital resolves itself into having the disposal of a
definite quantity of other people's unpaid labor" (Marx
500). An equally succinct modern admission of surplus
value can be found in an item in the business
publication. Security World: "You hire someone because
you will earn more from his labor than you will pay him
in wages" ("Honesty Testing" 71). Gerhart Niemeyer
freely admits that surplus value is an integral part of
any economy; "all civilization depends on it" (Niemeyer
U.S. Congress 36). What the worker produces is sold, and
the employer accumulates wealth as a result of mixing
the hired labor with the capital of machines.
The presence of capital in the mix has been used to
deny that the workers share of the value of the product
is any more than the wage he has received. Increasing
automation and concurrent demands to increase the
worker's responsibility for the product suggest that
82
surplus value should be a continued topic for critical
thought .
The central question of an economic system's
quality is how freely a person may think and act.
Niemeyer says, "Those who collect it [surplus value]
undoubtedly have some power in the social system."
However, he says the political system mitigates that
power. This does not answer the question about the role
of a critically thinking worker who does not collect
surplus value. In most manufacturing facilities persons
are divorced from the objects they produce, but for the
sake of argument, let us assume that they receive
appropriate compensation.
After compensation, the only thing left for the
worker after labor power is the ability to make
decisions. Yet, this is taken along with labor power.
Both life and property are placed under the employer's
domain as soon as the individual becomes an employee.
With service industries, a person's life is expressed by
activity, the content of which is determined by the
employer. Even if a worker is adequately compensated
how does one reconcile the admonitions to think
critically with the authoritarian workplace?
83
Every day the employee is saying to the boss, "You
can determine what my existence will be like for eight
hours. You say what I will do with my time."
Effectively speaking, by not being allowed to
participate in the decision-making process, a part of
the worker's existence is stripped away by the employer.
In other words, the worker has agreed to give up some
autonomy, but gets nothing in return for part of that
time, except, perhaps, the opportunity to receive
material compensation. Existence is for someone else's
benefit. Workers, in the employer's eyes, are worth
less as persons. Denying the worker the opportunity to
think and act critically reduces that person to the
level of a robot or a well-trained animal. An employer
having such control over workers has access to the
political apparatus if wealth has been accumulated.
Despite what the ideology says about a person's
rights to participate equally with everyone else in
politics, the businessperson has an advantage by being
able to finance that participation. Because of this, the
employers have an interest in carrying their pattern of
restricting a worker's participation in decision-making
in the workplace into the political arena (Greever
passim). A person holding political power generally has
84
the ability to seek another to do her or his will. The
power holder has a greater existence status than other
people. In the U.S. system political power normally is
a function of wealth, as Domhoff, Mills, Bowles, and
Gintis have argued. This can be explained by the
relationship that wealth can have with human life.
The power to make decisions in society is a
function of accumulating wealth. Power over oneself, or
the ability to direct one's own activities also is a
function of individual dignity, as the D.O.E. has stated
(Florida State 4). Employers deny workers this ability
of self-control in exchange for material compensation.
The ability to control workers' lives is represented by
accumulated wealth, which facilitates access to
political power in the case of financing campaigns or
buying office.
Political power often means that a person wielding
a great deal of it has a greater existence status than a
member of the general population. An accumulation of a
large amount of wealth is evidence that contrary to
Niemeyer's view that the power of wealth is effectively
regulated by government, those possessing wealth often
constitute the government (Bowles, Greever, Domhoff).
Those imposing authority in the workplace and
85
discouraging worker participation in decision-making
often are the same ones who serve often generously, on
boards and councils advising the D.O.E. Without
consciously injecting bias, it would be natural that
they make recommendations which in effect advocate a
democracy and exclude workers as citizens. Thus, the
D.O.E. can come to demand that people think critically
but find ways at the same time to make them more
obedient to a theocratic order. A primary purpose for
preparing individuals to think critically is so they can
participate effectively in deciding what happens in the
political and economic systems of their country, that
is, to make them good democrats.
Although the curriculum presents a distorted view
of the U.S. system, the U.S. social reality reinforces
the D.O.E. philosophy. A failure to talk about the
values being imposed on U.S. working people will likely
block the success of a program designed to teach people
to think critically about their society. The next
chapter describes the values that need criticism.
CHAPTER SIX
THE D.O.E. IDEOLOGY AND SOCIAL REALITY
How Students Are Told They Must Act in the Workplace
Despite the D.O.E. claims that students should
think critically and philosophically, the conservative
mentality behind Florida's cold war program is that the
average person is not philosophical and should accept
things on faith or, as Niemeyer says, "... what is new
under the sun cannot come from men or nature but only
from God" (Niemeyer Between 168). The D.O.E. argues that
"It is easier to distrust than to have faith." The fight
against communism is "fighting for faith" (Florida State
11). A work force which has been taught faith rather
than critical reasoning tends to be docile and easily
governed. What students are told about their role in the
workplace seems to reflect this philosophy.
Florida grammar school students learn that while
"decision-making" means "The act or process of arriving
at a solution to a problem, especially by giving
judgment," there is no suggestion that decision-making
should apply to the operation of a workplace (Goddard et
al., CE-131 3, passim). The role of decision-making is
clarified further in high school in that
86
87
not only does management organize and direct resources
but that it is "the administrative aspect of an industry
as opposed to labor" (Goddard et al., CH-310 8).
Vocational orientation materials say that "decision-
making" and critical thinking are only meant to improve
worker performance and not to establish the workers'
control over the economy (Dresner 19).
Business leaders do complain that such a condition
reguires too much supervision, and, although attempts
are being made to bring labor into management levels,
the overall pattern is labor's exclusion from decision-
making ( "Management-Labor" ) . Half the solution to the
problem of establishing a critical thinking program or
democratic workplace is recognizing that the ideology of
Americanism depend upon a philosophy that reinforces a
social reality beneficial to those in power. Further,
students are being taught that obedience at work has the
greatest material rewards. If "free enterprise" is the
best on earth because of the guantity of goods it
provides, teaching obedience to those controlling the
system is a way to sustain the Florida legislature's
judgment .
Florida students learn how to behave properly in
the U.S. workplace. All of the following nationally
88
used materials have been found frequently in Florida's
schools. In It's Up to You, a contemporary, frequently
used "job survival skills" booklet, the workplace
parameters are clearly described in what that
publication calls a "no-nonsense" style. The teacher
instructs the students " . . . what kinds of answers are
acceptable for an interview" (Dresner 4). The students
" . . . need to convince the employer that they meet the
requirements for the job (Dresner 19). The student's
wishes for job security, career goals, and stability
create the motivation to become assimilated into the
workplace. A job the person likes to do for which he
has appropriate skills, and a cooperative attitude
contribute towards worker contentment. Hardly would a
worker want to be situated in an intolerable workplace.
Comfort, however, carries a double-edged sword. Too
much comfort tempers criticism or a desire for change.
Stability depends upon satisfaction. On the other hand
to attain that happiness, workers often become
demanding, a condition not tolerated by workplace
supervisors .
It's Up to You says the workers should have
flexibility, cooperativeness, dependability,
assertiveness, and decision-making ability. The last
89
does not mean that the workers should participate in
decision-making, but that workers should obey the boss,
abide by stipulated workplace conditions, and otherwise
act suitably. These elements are taught as being
necessary for the political economy to function
smoothly. Decision-making for the worker does not mean
participatory democracy, but rather "choosing what to
do," or more precisely defined by the example, "The
company offered him two different jobs. He has to make
a decision about which job he wants" (Dresner 19). But,
3 " • • . person who gives instructions makes more
decisions. ..." A worker comes by such authority
because the boss gives it (Dresner 21). Ranking is done
by superiors, managers, and bosses of all types, to each
of whom the employee is beholden in varying degrees.
Decision-making occurs within a carefully defined
structure.
To what end is decision-making directed? More
succinctly, the question is: "How does the interviewer
decide if someone will be a good investment? Why are
new employees investments for the company" (Dresner 92)?
In the answer portion of the booklet, the "personnel
director" states, "If they have definite career goals,
it is much easier for me to see if they will fit in
90
here." If they . . know what they want in their
future," they will likely know now, so the interviewer
will know "... they'll be happy here" (Dresner 92).
The workers are investments because a lot of time
and money is spent in training them. Employees are
resources for production; for them to remain on the job,
they should be happy. In a mock interview with a
factory worker, decision-making means "... keeping the
machines in good working order," .pa an indication of
the limited thinking expected of the employee (Dresner
117) .
Nowhere does the unsettling guestion arise about
who owns or controls the means of production, what shall
be produced, who should decide how the productive
surplus shall be distributed, or how the situation got
to be where it is. In virtually every instance, it is
assumed the existing economic order of private
enterprise should prevail. Implicit in this material is
the idea of subordination, or keeping one's place.
Tasks are parceled out among workers at various levels.
Interaction among those levels, save for the upper
levels (those having more authority) telling lower ones
what to do, is discouraged. Workers with less
91
"responsibility" and authority look up to and not across
to supervisors.
In Getting a Job, after proper dress and manners,
workers learn where they find specific information on
the job. Students aspiring to be workers should choose
among "supervisor, co-worker, and no one" (Knox 33).
Quickly, the student discovers that one does not ask the
supervisor where the restrooms are, how much weekly pay
is, whether one can eat lunch with the supervisor (much
less, where to buy lunch), or why one is leaving early.
Most significantly, the worker does not ask or tell the
supervisor how the former is liked. Special people
divulge particular information. Only certain classes of
people may associate with other classes. As the boss
does not sit down to lunch with the employees, so the
teacher does not sit down with the student (Knox 33).
This latter comment is not as extraneous as it first
appears, for some school structures do not differ
significantly from the workplace, if one likens the
teachers to bosses, the report cards to paychecks, the
curriculum to workplace rules and instructions, and the
bells to timeclocks.
When the student graduates from school, he meets
the world of work. In another widely used publication.
92
Don't Get Fired, Mike cleans up a large office building.
The boss enters, carelessly allows cigarette ashes to
fall on the floor Mike has spent so many hours cleaning,
and then orders Mike to clean them up. The boss gets
angry when Mike criticizes the demand, saying "Young
man, when you work for someone, you obey orders." There
is trouble, "Because Mike hasn't learned that it is not
wise to talk back to the boss, even when the boss is
wrong" (Anema 53).
Bosses have help in maintaining a strait jacketed
workplace. In a recent report on technology in U. S.
industry, readers learned how "millions of blue collar
and white collar employees are working under the even
more watchful and relentless scrutiny of the computer."
Computer-generated performance reports "are being used
to structure piece-rate pay systems and to form the
basis for disciplining, demoting or even firing the slow
or under-skilled employee ("Management-Labor" 124).
What apologists for U.S. industry say actually
happens in the workplace confirms the norms taught by
vocational course material. A 1984 Business Week
editorial admitted that "In the auto industry, as in
many work situations elsewhere, workers are
traditionally expected to do what they are told and
93
leave the thinking to the boss ("Management-Labor").
Various restrictions in the workplace such as timeclocks
and performance quotas tend to stifle critical thought
and dissent. Nothing in the basic values held by the
business community encourages the sharing of authority
with workers.
Business Values Underlying the Curriculum
Central to shaping the D.O.E. curriculum are
private businesses, and their purpose of "adding
economic values to human resources" is expressed by one
of their professional organizations, the National
Institute for Work and Learning. In its recent study
sponsored by the U.S. Office of Education, the Institute
says :
The bottom line for all activities associated
with these functions is whether, collectively,
they produce material respect, trust,
reliability, and demonstrated results meeting
the specific needs of individual businesses,
higher educational institutions, and adult
learners. (Gold 14)
Learning needs are articulated within a certain
system. First, students must be motivated to acquire
skills while developing positive attitudes towards
society. Skill and attitude need to be " . . . linked in
94
the learner's mind to relevant people, places and
opportunities in the immediate community and larger
society. Improved motivation, in turn, reduces both
anti-social behavior and the need for costly remedial
programs." The curriculum must instill democratic and
capitalist values in the minds of students. To do this
"requires the participation of employers, workers, and
other citizens." In producing cost effective "labor
supply aligned with the market demand for labor" every
social sector interested in the system should take part
in training students. Workers must be kept motivated,
socialized, and "positive," while social order is
preserved and enough workers are made available when the
"market" demands it (Gold 3).
As shown above, "democracy," as used by business
people, does not necessarily mean that workers run the
workplace. Instead, it usually implies that workers
should use decision-making to select the best consumer
goods and to find better ways of making the "free
enterprise" system work. The worker's central role in
the system, according to such words as "meeting the
specific needs of individual businesses," is that of
consumer and element of a labor pool, a pool that is an
instrument of a profit-making machine. Rather than the
95
economic system serving the workers, the workers serve
the economic system.
That these views have wide currency is evidenced by
what other major business groups say. The American
Vocational Association says that vocational education
should only help "the private sector with a suitably
trained work force that is productive and competitive in
the marketplace--in essence, helping the private sector
to be profitable" (Paul 3). The National Association of
State Directors of Vocational Education described "...
what they perceive to be the main purposes of vocational
education" ("Position Statement" 11).
There are two: "Provide individuals with the skills
they need to attain economic freedom. Enhance the
productivity of local, state, and national economies."
More specific aims are to give individuals information
about the nature of work and work opportunities.
Vocational education also trains people to make
decisions, but only for enhancing production and
business profits. Organizational leadership skills also
must "promote and support the values of free enterprise
in a democratic society" ("Position Statement" 3). In
other words democracy must contain "free enterprise."
This special brand of democracy, by incorporating the
96
“free enterprise" workplace values, such as not talking
back to the boss "even when the boss is wrong," is like
Aristotle's view that democracy excludes non-citizens,
among whom are workers.
Endorsement of free enterprise type programs from
national organizations (as indicated on the Council for
Economic Education advertisements), public and private,
lends credence to the assertion that the D.O.E. program
in Florida cannot be treated as an isolated phenomenon.
The Free Enterprise Act is typical, as exemplified by
Arizona and Louisiana, which have mandatory free
enterprise courses consisting of the same type of
material as used in Florida. Like those in Florida,
students in these states must pass the free enterprise
course in order to graduate from high school. The
purported economic values are hard work with expectation
of a reward, but what actually happens on the job
militates against a critically thoughtful work force.
Not being able to "talk back" to the boss "even when the
boss is wrong, " threatening workers by monitoring their
every keystroke, and admissions from some employers that
"employees leave thinking to the boss" show that the
authoritarian workplace is common (Anema 53, Perl,
"Management-Labor"). Freedom of opportunity.
97
participatory democracy, and critical thinking still are
mere ideals.
What the Business Values Mean
In addition to enjoining deviant behavior in the
workplace and ignoring fundamental problems in the U.S.
economic system, the workplace orientation material
discussed above calls for a society with specific
features. It is a system involving everyone as
productive, competitive workers. Competition means that
bosses will hire workers willing to produce for the
lowest wage. A business person gains advantage by
aggressively selling as many goods and services as
possible, regardless of whether the environment is
destroyed or human safety is jeopardized. The American
Vocational Association's statement indicates that both
productivity and competition serve private profitability
(Paul 3). Profitability measures the success of both.
"Economic Freedom," couched in the values of private
competitiveness and productivity becomes linked to the
"nature of work," along with opportunity ("Position
Statement" 11).
Work and opportunity are supposed to make business
profitable, and profitable businesses enable the worker
98
to prosper. However, material prosperity is not the only
way of gauging an economic system's success if the
society values critical thinking. In using the term
"democracy, " those advocating critical thinking must go
beyond "decision-making" merely as selecting the best
thing to do and say that democracy .pa means using
critical thinking in every aspect of life, including the
workplace .
A person like Dresner (who says Mike should not
talk back to the boss, even when the boss is wrong)
promote a society where bosses, analogous to Aristotle's
"citizens," discourage workplace democracy for workers
as non-citizens. Within this special democracy is a
workplace where there are specific relationships defined
in terms of public and private sectors, buyers and
sellers of labor power, a cutthroat marketplace, leaders
and followers, and employers and workers. Such
distinctions separate people and discourage
participation in decision-making. Without this
participation, people have little need for critical
faculties, especially if they are told what to do all
the time.
It is consistent for students to be told that they
must follow orders blindly in the workplace on one hand
99
and be told, on the other hand, that they are living in
a democratic society and they are free to choose what
will happen in their own lives. To get a balanced view
of U.S. society they should be shown the system's
benefits, but they also should be aware that health care
is not provided to most people, that millions are
homeless, or that businesses fire workers if they
protest hazardous working conditions (Freudheim,
Carmody, "Ousted Worker Wins"). People who have scant
opportunity to criticize their orders, and decision-
making skills do not generally become developed. This
happens when those having an interest in maintaining
power benefit by an oppressive ideology which says the
workers cannot and should not have a say in how the
workplace should be run. A voice from the private
business sector expresses concern that workers are being
turned into robots without any thinking skills. However,
programs to involve workers in making decisions about
how the workplace is run often falter without continued
support from management ("Management-Labor"). Besides
the lack of such support, there is the problem of
getting people to participate in decision-making. Even
within a supportive environment, people are reluctant to
take time and effort to get involved. Business leaders
100
are thrust into a highly destructive competition, one
not unlike a war. They are caught between the perceived
need for running the business like an army division and
allowing a workplace alongside the alleged political
democracy on the outside. A business person's mistrust
of governments stems not only from a realization of what
well-heeled organizations can do, such as efficient
cutthroat businesses, but from the enormous
inefficiencies attendant with all bureaucracies.
When schools use material like Don't Get Fired,
teachers are caught in a dilemma in teaching critical
thinking and philosophy. Thinking critically is
detrimental to a person's well being in the U.S.
economic system where someone like Mike does criticize
the boss. A critically thoughtful worker may not
encounter this rigid a workplace; instead that person
can meet more subtle ways that critical thinking is
discouraged. A recent business publication contained a
report, "Bottom Line Personal--The Many New Measures of
Intelligence, " which cited an article in The New York
Times about ". . . psychologists [who] see the art of
persuasion as essential to success in much of life."
Being an academician, having a great deal of
intelligence, and "... success have little to do with
101
each other" according to a psychologist guoted in the
article. One must be "practical" because "... academic
intelligence has little to do with success in life."
What makes a successful person is the ability to sell
something, namely, "... the habits of mind that foster
productivity" {Boardroom Reports).
The virtuous traits of an academician, critical
thinking and philosophical thinking, militate against
being a salesperson, for selling something more often
than not means telling partial truths. The Florida
legislature and the D.O.E. are not unlike salespersons
in indoctrinating students with the ideology of
Americanism and saying, without qualification, that, its
product, the U.S. "free enterprise" system, is the best
on earth. If educational establishments assume that
academic intelligence does not correlate with success
while sales skills do, then it would be logical not to
emphasize critical thinking skills but salesmanship.
There is little distance from that point to arguing that
a successful D.O.E. program is one which can convince
students that a doctrine is true. In turn, the D.O.E. 's
pedagogy establishes for students a pattern of thinking
that not only is acceptable in an ostensibly objective
learning environment but a pattern vital to success.
102
D.O.E.-type ideologies reinforce a workplace and social
structure that says workers are tools to be used for
perpetuating those in power and are not competent to
join in the philosophic reasoning necessary to a
citizen. The course material has significant omissions.
Many realities which demand consideration are ignored.
While the student is told he lives in a democracy, the
average workplace is not that.
These effects flow from an educational program
which by its nature betrays its intent as will be shown
in the next chapter.
CHAPTER SEVEN
THE D.O.E. PROGRAM AND PHILOSOPHY
What Constitutes Reasoning and Critical Thinking
To teach students how to think critically about
social science the legislature and D.O.E. must find some
alternative to the current program. The A.V.C. and Free
enterprise courses inhibit an understanding of the world
and serve only to inflame students against other
systems. The D.O.E. wants students to accept philosophy
in deference to the reputedly ideological communism.
Philosophy is defined by the D.O.E. as an "attempt to
approach the truth in which assumptions may be
questioned and critically examined. (Florida State 18).
Ideology is defined as the absence of questioning and
critical examination. Because the D.O.E. is looking for
a way to teach philosophically rather than
ideologically, we need to see what constitutes
philosophy in order to identify the current D.O.E.
teaching methodology and what should be done to change
it .
The D.O.E. 's references to "reason," "critical
examination", and "logic" constitute only special parts
of philosophy and are not synonymous with each other.
103
104
Nierneyer faults ideologies for holding ideas merely
because they cohere logically (Nierneyer, Between 73). A
logic system can be constructed with a great deal of
research and predicated upon a set of well thought out
assumptions. In this way, thinking logically appears to
be thinking critically or open-mindedly . The person
constructing it may be quite willing to hold the system
up to public scrutiny and even be willing to alter the
assumptions. A major problem occurs when conclusions
are drawn only within the confines of a particular logic
system .
The D.O.E. says it prefers philosophy over
ideology, but the primary focus in curricular material
is on thinking critically. Upon closer examination one
finds that "critical," for that agency, means making a
diligent effort to find arguments sustaining its anti-
communist views. For example, a "critical analysis of
the nature of communism" means that students are
"studying the evils, fallacies, and contradictions of
communism" (Florida State 12-13). To the D.O.E. being
critical means giving "more than a 'yes' or 'no' answer
to the questions." Students raise questions so the
teacher can discuss appropriate concepts. One concept is
that " freedom is denied in all phases of life in the
105
Soviet Union." To elicit presentation of this concept
students ask questions about religion and culture in the
U.S.S.R. (Florida State 14, 30). Lest confusion arise
about how teachers present material, there needs to be a
discussion about the nature of argument, critical
thinking, and philosophy.
Philosophy courses often attempt to show that
"reason" is preferable to emotion in winning arguments.
A number of writers say "reason" means consciously
structuring an argument (Weddle, Scriven, Toulmin et
al.). One text defines "reasoning" as "the central
activity of presenting the reasons in support of a
claim, so as to show how those reasons succeed in giving
strength to the claim" (Toulmin et al. 13). The problem
with this definition is that it is vague and circular.
Precisely what "activity" is involved in presenting the
reasons? Is it ordering relationships and setting
standards for evaluating claims? "Reasons" is used in
the definition of the word "reasoning." This is
analogous to defining a "farmer" as one who farms.
A less circular definition of "reasoning" is
"systematically working toward the solution of a
problem, toward the understanding of a phenomenon,
toward the truth of the matter" (Scriven 2). Although
106
this definition captivates a major idea in saying that
intellectual effort rather than mere acceptance is used
to arrive at a concept, it is assumed there is a general
agreement as to the meaning of "systematic." Further,
the definition assumes that once a problem is
articulated, a solution or truth exists and it can be
found by this "reasoning." The D.O.E.'s Resource Unit
invokes this meaning of reason when it wants students
"to approach the truth" (Florida State 18).
Reasoning can also mean simply being able to
support an argument, but one begs the question about
there being such a thing as support (VJeddle passim) . An
assertion that support exists does not necessarily
constitute "reason." The standards used to judge
support also are selected from bases other than what
people call "reason." Often, standards of support
depend upon metaphysics, but metaphysics is beyond the
immediate realm of the mechanics of logic and specified
methods of. ^arriving at answers (Feibleman 121).
Support sometimes incorporates emotion. "Reason"
gets
pitted against
emotion
and is
regarded more
as a
way
that humanity
arrives
at a
consensus of
what
constitutes support
( Scriven
2).
It is assumed
here
107
that there is a human thought process called "reason"
that is totally divorced from emotion and that it is
universal. Different cultures and people of diverse
perspectives may organize thoughts about the same thing
differently. It would be rather presumptuous to claim
that any single logic or way of creating a logistic
system is sufficient to gain universal and unquestioned
acceptance among an emotional humanity. Unambiguously
defining emotion is not such an easy task. More
difficult is determining the degree that emotion enters
into a decision-making process. Often, human feeling is
so intertwined with the facts (that are supposedly
independent of that feeling) that one cannot say when
"reason" is being used.
The term "philosophical reason" has been used as an
attempt to overcome combining emotion with reason in
arriving at universal truths (Fogelin 302). Reason, to
paraphrase Scriven, certifies the shortcuts to the truth
(Scriven 5). Perhaps a better way of treating
philosophical reason is to say that the "truth" refers
to what the people see as the truth, even if emotion is
involved. To say that there are "universal truths"
commits one to a position not unlike a religonist
claiming the existence of a perfect being or deity. How
108
close to a universal agreement a way of thinking comes
is only one ingredient in "critical thinking."
Critical thinking often is taught in college
English and speech departments, under the rubric of
"argumentation" or "debate." Understanding what is
"good" versus "poor" reasoning refers to "critical
thinking." Neil Postman says that critical thinking
enables one ". . .to tell the difference between lies
and truth" and also means "how to think" (Postman 4).
Critical thinking, for Striven, means, "to reason
better" (Scriven 13). "Critical thinking" means
"identifying and describing the strengths and weaknesses
of arguments." The basic instruments of this include
the beginning and end of an argument, the stages the
arguments must pass through, and tests for checking
"whether a particular argument is fully reasoned
through" (Toulmin et al. 23).
One principal danger of advocating critical
thinking as a way of overcoming the teaching of ideology
is falling prey to the supposition that there are
"neutral" truths that everyone necessarily will
recognize with proper thinking. An example is the
D.O.E.'s thinking that after "critical analysis"
students automatically will see how "evil" communism is.
109
"The goal is the truth" says Scriven, but what if there
is no "truth" but a conclusion finally arrived at by
intuition or subjective means (Scriven 12)? The
objectivity one is supposed to have in good
argumentation means, for some people, that emotions
should not be aroused (Scriven 50). It is difficult to
remove emotions and bias even in computers, for the
humans programming the machines have value judgments and
biases. How one selects the things to be analyzed and
what standards of evaluation are used reflect human
biases. It is difficult to conceive how a humanity can
escape itself. Even thinking that "reasoning" could
exclude human feeling presupposes a judgment made by a
human presumably with feelings.
A synonym for lack of emotion, neutrality, often
gets coupled with a historicity. When people think that
the best standards of critical thinking have been
maintained, a danger lurks in believing that the
"reasoned" ideas are true regardless of historical
perspectives. There are at least pitfalls in
considering the importance of history in critical
thinking. First, in denigrating the importance of
history, one loses the opportunity of seeing how
reasoning standards fare in different contexts. For
110
example, the standards set for good evidence during the
Salem witchcraft trials are radically different from
those in the 1980s. A historical perspective allows one
to see the possible social consequences arising from
applying those seventeenth century standards. The
second pitfall involves an overreliance upon history as
a way of explaining social events. Making false
historical comparisons is representative of this.
Saying that the U.S. working people will rise up in
revolt because they are undergoing the same conditions
that workers in latter nineteenth century England is
deterministic and a misuse of history. Invoking
historical perspective is another means for assessing a
social situation and arriving at value judgments about
it. Each historical period contains its modes and
standards for reasoning.
For critical thinking in general, the "supporting"
claims, involves standards that vary with individuals,
cultures, and other subjective factors. Although
history is not often a major topic in critical thinking
texts, some people like Belth and Toulmin et al. devote
sections to the importance of placing the standards for
critical thinking in historical context (Belth 126-154,
Toulmin et al . 129-135). As Toulmin et al. ask, "May
Ill
not people in different cultures or at different times
in history begin from different initial presumptions?
So may not the actual course of practical reasoning go
quite differently in different cultures and epochs?"
(129). Qualitative assessments of what constitutes
adequate support for a claim are not alone considered
good critical thinking.
Some of these difficulties seem to be recognized in
the literature, however. As one writer of critical
thinking texts remarks, ". . . the ways in which the
burden of proof is allocated . . . have a history." No
one can authoritatively say that a general kind of
reasoning, along with a set of the same initial
presumptions, "must be accepted as authoritative and
compulsory in all cultures and in all historical epochs"
(Toulmin et al. 134). There does appear to be a general
agreement among persons presenting critical thinking
courses that constant, open inquiry is important in
arriving at ideas. Broadly interpreted, this would mean
taking account of varying cultures, history, and the
possibility that conclusions often are laden with
multiple and even conflicting truths.
Three interrelated areas of critical analysis enter
into an analysis of social problems; gathering facts.
112
arranging and analyzing the meaning of facts, and
drawing conclusions. Facts can be gathered in
conformity with a performed argument, or an argument can
be made on the basis of the facts. In gathering facts,
reasoning and critical thinking texts frequently refer
to "backing," "support," or "evidence." In one text, a
set of exercises asks for the kinds of information that
would go into backing up the given assertions (Toulmin
et al. 63). Students are asked what kind of
documentation would be necessary to support the claim
that the U.S.S.R. was a "terror society" between 1949
and 1953 (Toulmin et al. 64). Recognizing the place of
statistics is a skill taught in critical courses as
well. For example, students are told that the figures
given in the following passage is "unknowable."
"In the past 5000 years men have fought 14,523
wars. One out of four persons living during this time
have been war casualties. A nuclear war would add
1,245,000,000 men, women, and children to this tragic
list" (Kahane 78). The case against nuclear war would
be immensely strengthened with data which could actually
be found, such as figures from the Hiroshima bombing,
and numbers of war dead from the previous world wars.
113
By far, the greatest emphasis in critical thinking
courses is on the analysis of facts in argument form.
Part of the problem, says one text, is choosing among
logic, empirical analysis, analogs, and so forth (Belth
156). Some other ways of evaluating data are detecting
fallacies, recognizing bad statistics, making
appropriate comparisons, and assessing the guality of
language used in the argument. One text has a section
on comparing different national incomes. If a country's
cost of living is quite low, then a low income level
would not necessarily mean a low living standard
(Weddle 98-99). Language can be critical in arguments.
Students in this text are asked to criticize arguments
based upon word usage. Some assertions contain no new
information, such as the political speech quoted in
Weddle. "'The real thrust of this administration . . .
consists in opting where possible for programs which
tend to be cost effective in meeting this institution's
missions and goals'" (Weddle 69). Weddle says that
"running the institution effectively" means the same.
Drawing good conclusions primarily depends upon
being aware of how all the elements of argument analysis
come together. This means making an effort to discover
any errors in argument construction. Toulmin et al.
114
establish six elements entering into an argument
analysis. Claims and their grounds (facts used to
support the claims) must be established. The type of
argumentation used must be presented. Support, or the
way the evidence is used to back the claims, is needed.
The modalities, or conditions under which the argument
holds have to be established. Finally, the argument
must withstand possible rebuttals (Weddle 25). Other
text writers try developing a sense of good
argumentation by categorizing the type of problems
encountered in argumentation and discussing them
separately. Identifying fallacies, guestioning the
authority behind sources, making generalizations,
evaluating comparisons, and examining the meaning of
causality comprise the problem areas for Weddle. These
problem areas, however, overlap greatly with what is
covered in logic courses.
What Logic Is
Philosophy departments offer logic courses
ostensibly designed to develop critical faculties.
Standard beginning logic texts, such as Logic by Robert
Baum and Irving Copi's Introduction to Logic say that
115
logic sets standards for the way people reason and forms
the basis for clear and critical thinking. These logic
courses often are divided into two parts: deductive and
inductive logic. Students symbolize arguments and
ascertain whether they are deductively valid, i.e.; if
the premises are true, the conclusion necessarily must
be, as well. Deductive logic is the study of formal
relationships among already established truths.
Inductive logic involves informal fallacies, enumerative
induction, and some theories about scientific method
(Copi, Baum, Weddle).
These logic courses often are quite structured and
do not, in the main comprise what non-philosophy
departments, Niemeyer, the D.O.E., and others seem to
have in mind for their reasoning and critical thinking
programs. For example, logic is taught in English and
speech departments, where oratory and rhetoric
traditionally were taught in order to have the speaker
present arguments as forcefully and convincingly as
possible (Brock). Voice control, command of the
language, and argument structure comprised these skills.
However, these departments recognized that students as
listeners needed to "describe, interpret and evaluate"
the oratorical content (Brock 19).
116
Symbolic logic attempts to translate ordinary
language arguments into an analyzable form. However, it
is highly debatable whether this can be done. There is
reason to believe that the original intent of symbolic
logic was to symbolize mathematical relationships. J.
Barkely Rosser, originator of the system commonly used
in symbolic logic texts such as Copi's, says
Politics, salesmanship, ethics, and many such
fields have little or no use for the sort of
logic used in mathematics, and for these our
symbolic logic would be quite useless ... no
adequate symbolic treatment of the relationship
involving cause and effect has yet been devised.
(Rosser 6)
James K. Feibleman states that logic texts are more
interested in proving theorems and doing applied logic
rather then exploring the assumptions made in logic. If
the reasons for accepting the assumptions are not
examined, what follows is merely mechanical (Feibleman
119 et seg. ) .
Informal logic includes a study of fallacies, or
faulty modes of reasoning, partly by wrong uses of the
language. The fallacy of amphibole, for example,
presents an argument as being deductive with purportedly
true premises, while playing upon a multiple meaning of
a word or phrase (Baum 138).
117
Other components of the typical basic logic course
are scientific method and probability. No one
scientific method is usually discussed, and the section
on probability is usually mechanical in nature. Both
are treated as inductive logic and it is not uncommon to
arrive at conclusions qualitatively.
Formal logic does serve to discover new
relationships among elements that would not have
otherwise been found. Inductive logic is open in that
it does not have a regularly established procedure for
arriving at a conclusion based upon a set of premises.
However, there are problems with using logic to explore
and understand the world, as well as using logic as a
substitute for philosophy. Logic presupposes the
existence of structure and order, arrangements that are
made by human invention and imposed upon the world.
Another common denominator among all aspects of logic is
the supposition that there is a psychological process
called "inference." Humans will be able to conclude
things given certain arrangements of things. A simple
example is transitivity. If x is larger than y, and y
is larger than z, then x is larger than z. A problem
occurs when there is no universal agreem.ent about the
conclusion, as when different cultures enter the
118
picture. Here, one must go beyond logic, and mere
critical thinking.
Philosophers like E.A. Burtt offer a useful insight
into critical thinking. Burtt says people must "freely
learn from each other" (Burtt 32). In critically held
views, differing points of view must be accounted for.
Even so, ideas are subject to change due to
circumstances upon which the idea is based, or a change
in the purposes for which the idea is fitted. An
essential criterion for determining if an idea has been
generated and held critically is whether the idea can
withstand challenges. More than simply accounting for
opposing views, one asks whether the person holding the
idea generates ways of successfully discussing the
idea's weak points. Broad says that an idea must be
subjected ". . .to all the objections that we can think
of" (Broad 19). Reasoning, critical thinking, and logic
are not adequate for this task.
What It Means to Think Philosophically
A vast gap exists between ideology and philosophy.
Ideologues merely accept and hold ideas irrespective of
what others say or present as refutation. Persons
119
holding views uncritically ignore internal
contradictions, while the ideas are not subject to
change and tend to be simplistic. These people are the
fanatics who talk about the " . . . certitude of holy
writ" (Hoffer 128). Critical thinking does address what
is in the here and now and deals with it in an open-
ended fashion. With philosophy, however, there are not
just problems with answers, no matter how critically
held.
Critical thinking stands against the backdrop of
philosophy, be it a guess at the truth, the metaphysics
of logic, or just meditating without being aware that
there is something called "reason." A philosopher ". .
. delights in the clash of thought and in the give and
take of controversy" (Hoffer 8). When the D.O.E. says
philosophy means approaching the truth while questioning
and critically examining basic assumptions, that is not
enough, as a logical truth can be reasoned out by
carefully relating elements according to critically
thought out rules. Philosophy also is an inquiry into
the nature of human purpose and uses a variety of means,
such as critical thinking and logic. C.D. Broad suggests
that Speculative Philosophy involves guesses at the
truth, which then are subject to critical analysis (19).
120
While the particular meaning of philosophy differs
for each individual, it still directs a person to keep
an open mind. One common denominator seems to be
present among all philosophy texts. There is an ongoing
process of holding ideas up to challenge. No idea is
considered as absolute. Philosophy is a process, and
many ingredients and evaluative techniques enter into
it. It involves numerous elements ranging from formal
logic to a subjective evaluation of how language is
used. Philosophy as a process enters into all phases of
instruction. The accumulation of facts never ends, no
one mode of their presentation exists, and no one set of
conclusions can be drawn about what people learn. This
does not mean that philosophers carry no biases. As
noted, above, just the selection of standards for good
thinking is biased and has built-in value judgments. On
the other hand, if the bias is recognized, a person who
thinks philosophically will be all the more cognizant of
the need to entertain other ideas.
Ironically, for Niemeyer, Marx, in his preface to
the 1859 edition of Kapital , stated that his work would
never be complete. Instead of Marxism being a set of
beliefs, it could be considered a method of inquiry, a
method which says that inquiry must continue forever.
121
It is persistent inquiry with an open mind, after all,
that Niemeyer wants in a good D.O.E. program.
That the D.O.E. omits several vital features in its
definition of philosophy explains why the D.O.E. can
claim it is teaching philosophy but is nevertheless
using only a highly structured component of philosophy,
such as logic. A closed system of thinking often will
exhibit an extensive variety of ideas appearing to
emanate from open minds, but as long as the assumptions
shaping that system are not open to question, an
ideology exists. The next chapter examines how the
D.O.E. uses the method of logic to make its curriculum
ideological .
CHAPTER EIGHT
HOW THE D.O.E. PRESENTS ITS COURSES
The D.O.E. System of Logic
Gerhart Niemeyer objects to the logical basis of an
ideology because the lack of critical analysis does not
adroit any new truths into the system of ideas. In a
society ideologically based, "Its core is an ideological
faith that the inherent logic of concepts can contain
the measure of right living" (Niemeyer, Between 134).
Niemeyer says that values in an ideologically based
system are not arrived at critically and are accepted as
if they were real (133). He faults ideology for being
logically based and says an ideological social order is
one " . . . based on deprivation rather than
participation" (134). Niemeyer refers to the deductive
or closed argument.
A deductive argument means if the premises are
true, a necessarily true conclusion follows. The
argument is truth preserving and operates strictly
according to a set of rules. Rigid ideologies are cast
as deductive arguments and are "closed systems." An
axiom is a truth that cannot be questioned. It is a
122
123
principle or set of principles upon which all other
statements and arguments within a deductive system rely
for integrity (Hempel 495). Axioms may or may not
describe the world, but as long as they are accepted as
being true everything that follows from them is true if
the argument is to be deductive. For example, let us
say that all dogs are chipmunks and that all chipmunks
are elephants. If we accept the first two statements,
then "all dogs are elephants" is true. This argument is
tautologous because the conclusion is grounded solely on
the first two statements.
Physicist Werner von Heisenberg recognized this
type of problem in what is now known as the uncertainty
principle. Observations made by a scientist are going
to be shaped by what the experimenter establishes as a
standard for observation. The observer "contaminates"
the observation, and the values built into the premises
will be carried noncritically over into the conclusion.
Deductive truths within an ideology may be specious in
the real or inductive world because the axioms
themselves often are not subjected to critical analysis.
As shown in the previous chapter, arguments that say it
is true because it is true do not contain any new
information, do not rely upon critical thinking, and
124
represent what Niemeyer says he is trying to avoid in a
curriculum. A deductive argument's principal value lies
in producing a new way of looking at the same set of
information. The D.O.E. ideology and the means used to
teach it are deductively based because the system the
D.O.E. justifies is closed, the premises are advanced in
the curriculum as unquestionable, and the D.O.E.
requires specific teaching methods.
The House Un-American Activities Committee
statement on Americanism, which the D.O.E. relies upon
in its A.V.C. and F.E.C.E.A. curriculum, says that the
Declaration of Independence and the Constitution provide
the basis for Americanist principles, analogous to
axioms in logic (Florida State 65). Curricular material
fails to question that truths are "self-evident" as
asserted in the Constitution. Whether it is truly a
flexible document can be judged by what type of order,
rigid or flexible, it seeks to preserve or foster.
The U.S. system was born of political economic
revolution; it radically separated itself from the old
order of British monarchy " . . .in order to establish a
more perfect union . . ."as the Constitution states.
By making this break, the revolutionaries clarified what
would be allowed inside the system and what would be
125
prohibited. Titles of nobility, for example, are not
permitted, as well as billeting troops without a
homeowner's consent. The Constitution declares what
will be permitted legally inside the system, both with
respect to functions and structures. Americanist
principles, then, operate according to specific rules.
Much in the same manner that truths are derived
"naturally" in a deductive logic system (often referred
to as a "natural deduction system"), the Declaration
alludes to "natural" rights in explaining how truths are
derived in the U.S. system. Anything destructive of
those rights the people have a right to abolish, but
only certain people. Despite its pronouncements about
liberty, justice, and general welfare, but in keeping
with the spirit of Aristotle's democracy, the 1789
Constitution applied only to a minority. Fifty percent
of the population--women, blacks, native Americans, and
the propertyless--could not vote, according to the
original Constitution.
A rigid deduction system does not change with the
times. An ideologue's view of the world is similar; it
is also ahistorical and places that person in a position
of arguing for outdated ways of thinking. Keeping
people in their places is what happened after the
126
British monarch was overthrown two hundred years ago,
but the traditionalist ideologue with an eighteenth-
century mindset would argue that everyone should be kept
in his place today in a similar manner. Nothing in the
Constitution guarantees the right of a worker to have a
say about what happens on the job or enjoins businesses
from abusing the peoples' trust. Statutory law often
shapes the relationships between business and society,
as in the anti-trust statutes and minimum wage laws.
Laws many times are reactions to problems long overdue
for action, and today, workers still do not enjoy the
right to a dignified adequately-paying job with the
power to exercise democracy on the job.
It is non-legal circumstances, though, that often
act to restrict a person, at least as much as any law.
Chapter Six showed what students are really being told
about how to behave in the workplace and how that
contrasts with how the D.O.E. portrays the U.S. economic
system in its free enterprise courses. Workers often
are kept in the workplace because of what is demanded of
them on the "outside," especially if the demands are
shaped by social constraints. For example, making
abortion illegal, positive reinforcement of child-
rearing and "family values," and social disdain for
127
childlessness act to maintain the economic system by
requiring people to be tied to a job in order to earn a
steady income.
The boundaries of the system are circumscribed in
this instance by physical necessities imposed by
prevailing ideas of how people should behave. If a
woman has to pay at least $10 a week for pantyhose
because the boss demands she wear them, this worker is
tied to the workplace even more. Being a whistle blower
or severe social critic entails risks of losing a job or
social ostracism. Thus, social systems are not rigid
just because of what a government allows.
By implication the system is to be a lasting one,
that is, in a state of equilibrium. It is to maintain
itself against all other systems. One F.C.E.E. course
booklet presents "pure/perfect competition" as " . . .an
idealized market" where all goods are of the same
quality, no one person can disproportionately affect the
market, and the right quantities of goods are always
offered for sale. (Florida State 40) The bias enters in
offering this as a desired model, when, in fact,
inflexible support for the so-called market economy acts
to restrict the ability of governments to plan and act
where the economy fails.
128
Such a rigid model is like a deductive system being
used as the sole device to describe and analyze social
phenomena. One cannot account for unlimited social
variety with these limited devices. Looking at systems
deductively--t hat is, deriving conclusions from a
dogmatically-held set of premises-- may be likened to
imprisoning social policy. For example, when business
people say that only the "market" should determine who
should be employed. "The market," as one prominent
political scientist says, "might be characterized as a
prison." Charles Lindbloom says that "it imprisons
policy making, and imprisons our attempts to improve our
institutions" (Lindbloom 329).
In order for the system to be self-maintaining, the
system normally does not tolerate anything contradictory
to the principles upon which that system reputedly is
grounded. David Easton describes an equilibrium-seeking
system as one in which "all elements or variables in a
political system are functionally interdependent; and
second, that they will tend to act and react on each
other to a point where a state of stability, if even for
a moment, obtains" (Easton, The Political System 268).
W. Ross Ashby terms these self -maintaining or
static systems as "homeostatic," likening them to how
129
the human body keeps itself stable (101). A system
depends upon feedback for its survival so it can assess
what outputs are acceptable. Nadel states that output,
or " . . . any conduct in accordance with the social norm
. . ." comes back partially as input (401). This type
of feedback justifies the output. The system's ability
to ascertain acceptable output partially determines
survivability. Adaptability means the ability of the
system to change in conformity with what it takes to
survive. Systems models accounting for adaptability
often assume that political economies try " . . .to
persist in a world of stability or change" (Nadel 407).
Easton says that a system manipulates the
environment and controls disturbances in order to
maintain itself. In the process, even the system itself
can change. Nevertheless, the political system, ". . .
those interactions through which values are
authoritatively allocated for a society," tries to
persist and does so if it allocates values to the
acceptance of the society's members (Easton, Systems
428). Of course, it is those members who have
authority. Even though the process of maintaining a
system may appear to be democratic, the system still is
a static entity merely maintaining itself for the
130
benefit of those in control {Systems 432). The best
political theory Easton says he can present is to impute
to a political system a "theoretical norm" or point of
reference against which any set of empirical relations
can be contrasted or compared (Easton, Political System
278). Advocating that a system should remain the same
and maintain itself is an appeal to deduction. Deduction
is, after all, a closed system which does not allow the
admission of any new elements (Rosser 6, Feibleman 15,
Copi 51-54 ) .
The D.O.E. s Deductive Methodology
A close examination of the A.V.C. and Free
Enterprise courses shows three major ways the D.O.E.
exercises its deductive teaching methodology: the
vagueness of terms and concepts, faulty parallel
comparison of systems, and dictation to teachers and
students the "truths" to be used in discussion. These
problems, however, do not exhaust the reasons the D.O.E.
program is a poor way to teach economic awareness and
international understanding, but they illustrate the
need for the D.O.E. to use a different approach to
teaching social science.
131
By making generalizations and using vague terms it
is easier to frame premises which people accept as being
true. This is the principle behind the fallacy; one
introduces false or ambiguous premises into a deductive
argument so as to "demonstrate" a dubiously sound
conclusion. For example, a fallacy of equivocation is
"All giraffes are tall animals. Therefore a short
giraffe is a short animal." While all giraffes are
animals, one cannot by transitivity say that a giraffe
is a short animal.
The A.V.C. legislation, itself, says that the U.S.
political economy is "the one which produces higher
wages, higher standards of living, greater personal
freedom and liberty than any other system of economics
on earth." Furthermore, "No teacher or textual material
assigned to this course shall present Communism as
preferable to . . . the free-enterprise economy
indigenous to the United States" (Florida Revised
Statutes 233.064). The words higher standards of
living, "freedom," and "preferable" are unqualified in
the legislative language. Minimally, we find a picture
that is much more complicated than the legislation would
have us believe.
132
For example, the D.O.E. approved curricular
material says "The results of the profit motive and
competition in the American economy has (sic) been the
highest standard of living of any nation in the world"
with "a constant economic growth that has left each
generation of Americans considerably more well off than
their parents were" (Goddard et al., CH-310 35). Even
if material well being was the only criterion for
judging the worthiness of an economy, "highest standard
of living" needs qualification. While U.S. workers do
have relatively higher wages than comparable workers
throughout the world, they are not guaranteed a minimum
standard of living. Higher standards of living might be
gauged by a car in every garage, but that is mitigated
by the absence of public transportation (Weddle 92). If
car repair costs are significantly greater than the cost
of public transportation, then the number of cars a
family has may not be a good indicator of living
standards .
Factually, the U.S. has not experienced constant
economic growth, as evidenced by the 1930s' Depression,
and the numerous recessions since that time. In
addition, discussion needs to include the quality of
life most Americans have. Poverty levels, environmental
133
contamination, and mounting personal debt may be
considered factors qualifying the phrase "well off"
(Rodgers and Harrington 406-411).
In using still another sweeping generalization, the
legislation states that communism is not preferable to
the U.S. free enterprise economy. This means that there
are no aspects of communism that are preferable to those
of the U.S. economy. Even by correcting the D.O.E. by
saying that the U.S. has a mixed rather than a "free
enterprise" economy, it is difficult to imagine that
there is virtually no feature in the Soviet system that
is preferable to' what the U.S. system has. Under the
D.O.E. legislation, one cannot argue favorably, say,
that the universally available health care in the Soviet
Union, however minimal, is preferable to the lack of it
in the U.S. For the D.O.E., nothing in communism can be
found "preferable" to that in the U.S.; there can be no
criticism on this point (Florida Revised Statutes
233.064) .
The second problem area with the D.O.E. methodology
is faulty parallelisms. Besides using vague terms,
teachers must compare systems according to a few
selected criteria. Communism and Americanism are so
disparate that one can not compare them sensibly
134
according to a single set of standards. If a curriculum
portrays only the positive aspects of the U.S. political
economy and the negative aspects of competing, systems,
an expected conclusion would be that the U.S. system is
the best one on earth.
As another example of faulty comparison, the
H.U.A.C.'s definition of " Airiericanism, " adopted by the
D.O.E., makes no mention of an economic system; it is
only a political declaration. "Free enterprise" is an
economic system only in the Free Enterprise and Consumer
Education Act. In the 1962 A.V.C. law, "Communism" is
defined as a "political ideology" and D.O.E. approved
Center for Economic Education course material calls
"communism" an economic system as well as a political
one. It is economic in that it "uses the commands of a
central planning agency to decide how collectively owned
resources of a society shall be used." It is political
in that it wants to abolish "private property and
individualism" through "the replacement of the market
system with collective planning" (Goddard et al., CH-310
4). Because allocation of resources is the focus of
definition of both the Soviet political and economic
systems, which aspects of "communism" are to be used for
comparison with "Americanism?" Later the C.E.E. course
135
booklet contradicts itself somewhat by saying that
"Communism is not really a type of economic system, but
a utopian and non-attainable ideal where there is
neither private property nor government and coercion
(Goddard et al., CH-310 14).
When the C.E.E. defines "Free enterprise" as "An
economic system where individuals and businesses risk
their own investment in competition with other
individuals and businesses to produce and distribute
goods and services for profit" to what degree does this
exist (Goddard et al., CH-310 6)? Every economy is a
"mixed economy," says the C.E.E. , but each emphasizes
control differently. However, aspects of the Soviet
economy may be more controlled than in the U.S. and vice
versa (Goddard et al., CH-310 8). The method of
describing the political economies of the Soviet Union
and the U.S. is too restrictive because the descriptive
categories are so limited.
Certainly, the third major area of concern of the
D.O.E. methodology, telling students and teachers what
to think, violates the whole injunction to promote
Niemeyer's critical thinking. Using the deductive
method of teaching means instilling in the minds of
students the A.V.C. axiom that only "free enterprise" is
136
the world's best system. In the free enterprise
curriculum high school teachers are told to "Identify
elements of the American economic system to include:
freedom, opportunity, justice, efficiency, growth, and
security." Also, the teachers must "Identify the
categories of economic systems: traditional, command,
and market" (Goddard et al., CH-310 72).
While students learn that "It's not possible to say
which system is best without considering the relative
importance of different economic objectives," the
material, in keeping with the A.V.C. mandate, tells
students that under "centrally planned or socialist
economies" people cannot freely choose consumer goods,
pursue their careers freely, or sell goods freely
(Goddard et al., CH-310 9). Although students are
asked, "Under what conditions would communism be
successful or desired?" students also learn that about
half the world that is communist wants to destroy the
U.S. (Goddard et al., CH-310 21). The "American Free
Enterprise System" reputedly values the individual,
whereas other systems, by implication, do not (Goddard
et al., CH-310 34). The obvious conclusion, given these
premises, is that if one values "freedom" then he is to
select "free enterprise." If the D.O.E. insists upon a
137
logical approach to teaching its curriculum, it is
dishonest to say that using logic, alone, is teaching
critical thinking. Still, logic does have a useful role
in the classroom.
Other Logical Approaches
Idealizations are useful in the physical and social
sciences. Deductive systems do precisely this. Even
Easton never states that a system ever is permanently
stable, but "real moments of equilibrium are part of the
political pattern." He compares the equilibrium
condition to an ideal, such as the ideal of frictionless
bodies in physics {The Political System 278-280).
Problems arise, however, when that idealization is
mistaken for reality. One way to avoid these problems
is to admit imperfections regardless of what type of
logic is used. A person who says the U.S. system is not
perfect, but that it is the best we have, shows a
willingness to overlook imperfections in the system.
However, criticisms of the Soviet Union center about how
"Marxism" or "communism" does not measure up to the
ideals. The C.E.E. material defines "communism" as "the
final utopian goal" that "is not yet achieved" while it
138
does not subject capitalism to similar tests such as
meeting the ideologue's claims of freedom and
opportunity (Goddard et al., CH-310 10). A disparity
exists in accepting imperfections in the U.S. system
while demanding that the Soviet system measure up to
some ideal.
The D.O.E. is biased in narrowly selecting elements
for analysis, and shaping the analysis for some end
purpose. For example, the C.E.E. acknowledges that in
the U.S. everyone is not guaranteed work, people may not
choose the right job, and job changes might cause much
disruption in family life and income loss. Such
shortcomings are evidenced by the millions of homeless
roaming the streets. Although these gross imperfections
are allowed in the U.S. economy, similar problems
warrant condemnation by free enterprise ideologues, such
as "freedom is not available in many centrally planned
economies. In the Soviet Union," they say, "individuals
may be assured of a job, " but they cannot work where
they want in their own field of endeavor (Goddard et
al., CH-310 33). Of course, if a person in the U.S. is
forced to support a family, job mobility usually is not
possible. Ideologues expect the opposing system to
change because it does not solve the problems of the
139
type that exist in the ideologue's own country. The
ideologue's country is supposed to remain in equilibrium
while the other country must alter its system.
Showing the U.S. system is one of equilibrium and
with feedback logic is too limited a way to get a
comprehensive picture of a social system while meeting
Niemeyer's standards of a satisfactory D.O.E. program.
Other more instructive ways exist to teach an
understanding of systems.
Logic is useful in seeing how social entities do
relate to each other. Even if these entities are
selected arbitrarily, new interrelationships am.ong
social events can be discovered and new questions can be
posed about what is happening in society. In effect,
logic could be used as a pedagogical brainstorming
device to raise questions and criticisms about the
issues raised in the D.O.E. courses. Logicians do this
in creating what would appear, at first, to be
outrageous models of how they think the world could be.
A somewhat tongue-in-cheek example of an equilibrium
system is a computer program designed as an "ideology
machine." This artificial intelligence program relies
upon a hierarchical data base in which elements are
combined to form atoms which, in turn are combined to
140
form plans. Plans comprise themes which make up scripts
of how ideologies might act out world affairs dramas.
The major instructive point is that a rather coherent
set of principles put together in a system can result in
correspondingly coherent behavior which can be called
"ideological" (Boden 75-76).
Science fiction writers do the same thing by
imagining how things could look, given what technology
and scientific knowledge exists. Logic uses models
which highlight problems not normally perceived in
ordinary discourse. Each model type focuses upon the
type of problem being studied. It " . . . mirrors only
certain aspects or facets of reality" (Bertalanffy 13).
Logic can be critical in that no claim has to be made
which says that any one method or model must always
necessarily dominate all the rest.
An inductive system is likened to a system based on
critical thinking in that the open system may have true
premises but not necessarily true conclusions. In other
words, the conclusion follows only with a degree of
probability. That a principle could be admitted which
seemingly contradicts already established truths
suggests that open systems are not compatible with
ideological thinking. A few axioms held by the
141
ideologue do not necessarily lead to other truths in the
open system. The closed system is more difficult to
keep viable in a changing environment, for encountering
new challenges requires the consideration of assumptions
possibly not acceptable to the ideologue.
Some inductive logic methods include an
interdisciplinary problem-solving approach by separating
the whole society into analyzable components. A number
of models may be constructed of how this whole operates.
Cybernetic systems models study the manner in which a
society seeks goals while maintaining itself.
Competitive relationships among individuals and groups
within a system, or among systems themselves, is the
subject of game theory. Here, some fundamental
questions are being asked about the intellectual
relationship between the individual and the State.
While these methods have their utility they are not
sufficient to overcome the flaws in the D.O.E. program.
Criteria for Analyzing Social Systems
Many issues can be raised about problems for which
the courses fail to account and for which a critical
analysis is needed. Opposing ideas have a chance to be
fully aired when a number of analytical methods are used
142
together. At least as important as the issue of logic
being open-minded is whether the D.O.E. courses can deal
with the objections and challenges that a logical method
presents. The D.O.E. states that students must fit into
society according to state-prescribed educational
standards, but this does not avoid the charge of being
rigidly ideological and non-critical .
If social systems are to be discussed in the manner
that Niemeyer proposes, that is, in a philosophical way,
some non-ideological method should be found to do so. A
mere description of a political economy often results in
a hodgepodge of isolated facts and unsubstantiated
generalizations. Although a structural device to
defend a system may be biased, at least it is a
framework within which theory can be articulated,
criticized, and improved. Theory provides reasons for
why events happen and enables one to take actions to
forestall unfavorable circumstances and enhance
favorable ones. This is especially important when a
major goal is to preserve a political economy as
Niemeyer appears to want to do. However, fostering
international understanding requires a different
approach from saying uncritically that the U.S. system
is the best in the world and that it is a competitive
143
organism which has beaten out all the rest. More than
good logics are required to overcome this narrowminded
assumption. The next chapter explores some alternatives
to the D.O.E. program.
CHAPTER NINE
CONCLUSION: ALTERNATIVES TO THE D.O.E. PROGRAM
Why Change is Needed
One requisite for changing the D.O.E. curriculum is
a heightened consciousness on the part of educators
about the role institutions play in limiting academic
freedom and critical thinking. The A.V.C. and Free
Enterprise acts, because of the well defined ideology
they mandate and the elaborate apparatus established to
teach the ideology, provide a paradigm of how government
and business operate together to maintain a system and
discourage any challenges to it. If general public
school policy dictates the teaching of ideology, then
instructors at all levels need to take stock of what
they are doing and decide in conscience whether they
should help perpetuate the teaching of a state doctrine.
The policy has not been clarified for universities, but
there are warnings that it could be. That the Board of
Regents is on the Florida Council of 100 and the state
universities are helping to prepare the D.O.E.
curriculum in conjunction with the Florida Council on
Economic Education suggest that the universities condone
144
145
the teaching of ideology. Besides university
sponsorship of the curriculum, academicians should be
wary because legal force still exists for what the
D.O.E. is doing (Florida Revised Statutes
232 . 246 ( 1 ) (b) ( 5 ) ) . Heightened consciousness also means
the willingness to assess critically what happens in
U.S. society. Critical thinking can play a vital role
in making this country a better place in which to live.
Here, goods and services are generally available,
whereas in other countries they often are not. People,
for the most part, can choose where to live without
formal governmental approval. Freedom of expression is
not as restricted by the government as it is in many
other places. These and many liberties can be exercised,
but governmental authority is not the only form of
restriction .
Materials for the economics portion of the D.O.E.
program repeatedly make the comparison between a
"capitalist and socialist system" (Goddard et al., CH-
310 passim) . In appearing to offer a balanced
presentation between the two economies the D.O.E. -
sponsored Center for Economic Education booklet The
American Free Enterprise System says that the price for
"freedom of consumer choice" is choosing goods which are
146
"disappointing or even harmful." Government regulations
are said to be the answer. The material claims that
U.S. people can pursue careers freely, but there may be
considerable disruption or loss of income. In socialist
countries, claims the text, people cannot choose jobs
freely, or buy what they want (Goddard et al., CH-310
32-34). D.O.E. assertions often made with emotionally-
charged labels such as "free" or "dictator." Merely
labeling ideas as "socialist" or "atheistic" and giving
only one side of the story not only defeats Nieraeyer's
mandate for critical thinking but denies students the
opportunity to become effective citizens by being aware
of urgent problems. There are many features of this
economy that if not addressed may cause serious
disruption in the U.S.
Without money, people cannot buy the things they
want or go to just any place. In many areas of the
country, the "free enterprise" and religionist ideology
is so pervasive that peer pressure often will stop free
expression. Most people either do not have
comprehensive health care or are made financially
destitute with a major medical treatment, thus forcing
them into poorly maintained charity hospitals
( Freudenheim ) . Superfluous variety in goods and
147
services often causes people to waste as much time in
selecting what they "want" as standing in the longest
line in the Eastern Bloc countries. Waste in production
also poses serious environmental risks, and if people do
not rethink this issue, there may be no planet to
support humanity. The supply of individuals competing
with each other for the same job or educational
opportunity too often exceeds the demand. Lack of
affordable housing makes thousands homeless.
The basic assumption that workers are paid the full
value of their contribution to their product is not a
regular topic of public controversy. D.O.E. courses do
not present collective ownership and control of the
workplace as a viable alternative despite examples of
plants purchased and operated in the U.S. by employees.
Neither does the public see this debated frequently in
the general media. Severely criticizing the system,
followed by proposing serious alternatives to the
established order, does not automatically imply that a
soviet-style system is preferable. What works in the
Soviet Union may or may not work here. Cuba, for
example, has its unique committees for the Defense of
the Revolution, something not found in the U.S.S.R.
Human life, if it has any value, cannot be measured
148
materially. A humane society is predicated upon the
idea that human dignity means that a person is
encouraged to think philosophically. That, even the
D.O.E. says. More poignantly, failing to think
critically about world affairs may result in a nuclear
holocaust for us all. Alternatives to wasting human
life surely exist. Critical examination and willingness
to try other systems often provide answers. Different
methods of education and social organization have been
tried, with varying degrees of success. Others have
addressed the cold war issue by attempting to form
alternative programs and societies.
Alternative Educational Programs
A central ingredient of an educational program that
promotes peace and understanding is critical thinking.
The D.O.E. program does precisely the opposite through
promoting rigidly-held ideas that can at best be
described as antiquated. As John Dewey said "... some
attitudes. . . central in effective ways of dealing with
subject matter . . ." are ". . . directness, open-
mindedness, single mindedness (or whole-heartedness),
and responsibility" (173). Through education, people can
149
become aware of how to be effective citizens capable of
assuming responsibility both in their own lives and in
the workplace. Bowles and Gintis have shown that
"Essential to the success of the program would be a
coalition of students, teachers, community groups, and
worker's organizations" (250). Some attempts at
achieving these ideals have been tried.
Sumemrhill is a school in England founded in 1921
that, at first glance, would seem to accomplish
Niemeyer's goal of producing critically-thinking
citizens and address the concerns of Dewey, Bowles and
Gintis and also be an effective remedy against cold war
hysteria. The school is designed to counter schools for
". . . uncreative citizens who want docile, uncreative
children who will fit into a civilization whose standard
of success in money" (Neill 4). Children are assumed to
be capable of thinking and, given a chance, will m.ake
wise and realistic decisions. All school rules are
voted upon by students, and a general principle of
behavior is that anyone can do as she or he wants as
long as others are not hurt. "Is what Mr. X doing
really harmful to anyone else?" (Neill 344) If the
answer is no, then objectors to Mr. X are acting anti-
life.
150
However, the Head-Master ultimately approves the
regulations but with the stipulation that they are
beneficial to the children. Class attendance is not
mandatory, but as children grow older, they go more
regularly. Quality of the courses sometimes is in doubt
at various levels, but a British education commission
concluded that " . . . valuable educational research is
going on here which it would do all educationist good to
see" (Neill 85). Summerhill's advocates appear to be
promoting Niemeyer's ideal of critical thinking by
raising a child with the values of mutual self respect
and a happy "genuine" individual who will not be a
"misfit" (Neill xiv) . The school's founder, A.S. Neill,
says, "My view is that a child is innately wise and
realistic. If left to himself without adult suggestion
of any kind, he will develop as far as he is capable of
developing" (Neill 4). In this laissez-faire
environment, Neill assumes that children will develop a
sense of self-government, criticism, and fair play.
Another supporter, Eric Fromm, admits to the ". . ^
remarkable success in teaching achieved in the Soviet
Union." In the same paragraph, though, the seeds of
cold war antagonism are sown by his accusation that
151
"old-fashioned methods of authoritarianism are applied
in full strength" (Neill i). Neill lends credence to
this view in saying "The very nature of society is
inimical to freedom" (122). The implication is that
advocates of Summerhill, also the advocates of freedom,
should oppose the Soviet Union. While Summerhill may
seem to favor the critical thinking that Niemeyer seeks,
Neill's saying that " Society--the crowd--is conservative
and hateful toward new thought" would have that school's
proponents go even further than those of the A.V.C. in
opposing the Soviet Union (122). All societies for
Neill are rejected; he does not like any of them.
Places like Loblolly School in Gainesville,
Florida, for young children, and The Center for
Participant Education in Tallahassee, Florida, for
adults, still offer themselves as alternatives to the
public school system, but if they subscribe to
Summerhill 's anarchy, one cannot expect a radical
turnabout from the cold war mentality that shaped A.V.C.
On a larger scale attempts have been made to create
cooperative economic systems that promote popular
decision making. Numerous examples exist, such as the
Mexican Ejido cooperatives and the Israeli Kibbutzim
(Infield passim). The Miccouskee Land Cooperative, and
152
the Leon County Food and Vegetable cooperatives in
Tallahassee, Florida, have proved to be thriving
examples of how collective decision-making works (Felder
passim) . While the lack of ideological direction may be
compatible with critical thinking, the resulting anarchy
can inhibit effective directed action and result in the
same cold war mentality engendered by Summerhill-type
schools. Any attempt to make changes nationwide also
would fail with the same mentality.
Advocates of the D.O.E. program are quite right in
asserting that the ideological program must be total in
scope touching every aspect of the student's life.
Michael Apple says that educational theory hardly can be
neutral. It must "... have its roots in a theory of
economic and social justice." The criteria used to
characterize justice Apple puts in terms of "increasing
the advantage and power of the least advantaged" (158).
A more fundamental approach to establishing social
justice would be to say that the quality of life is
dependent upon whether persons can have control over
their lives, and this means people are generally
recognized as individuals having the capacity to do so.
The D.O.E. talks of philosophy versus ideology, and
this distinction should be used to find out how this
153
basic principle of justice can be extended to everyone
in society. Dewey says that philosophy may be regarded
" . . .as thinking which is conscious of itself . . . "
and that " . . . is the theory of education as a
deliberately conducted practice" (332). All of the
above models for social change may have their
advantages, but each is faced with the same mentality
that helped spawn the U.S. responses to communism and
the Americanism versus Communism program in Florida and
so many other states.
What An Education Program Must Address
There are three ways the United States has dealt
with the U.S.S.R. since the end of World War Two
(Compton passim). First has been the Truman Doctrine of
containing what the U.S. and its allies refer to as
"communism," expressed in a speech 12 March 1947.
Winston Churchill, in a Fulton, Missouri, speech on 5
March 1946, promoted the idea of containment by claiming
that the Soviet Union had dropped an "iron curtain"
between western and eastern Europe. By lending support
to countries ringing the Soviet Union, communism would
not spread. On 4 April 1949 Truman signed the North
154
Atlantic Treaty Organization act, specifically designed
to "contain" coranmnism.
The second cold war response was telling the world
how loyal the American people were to their country and
the ideals of capitalism. This response encouraged
others living in socialist countries to reject communism
and adopt capitalism as their system. Sponsors of Radio
Free Europe hoped people living in eastern European
socialist countries would revolt and call for U.S.
assistance. Inside the U.S. numerous congressional
investigations, motivated by Senator Joe McCarthy,
questioned the loyalty of dissenters. The effect was to
silence opposition and create a facade of unity against
world communism.
The third way of responding to communism has been
with detente. Various nuclear test ban treaties, such
as one of 25 July 1963 , and summit talks evidence
attempts by the superpowers to keep peace while standing
apart from each other. None of these strategies has
fostered world peace and understanding, as evidenced by
the bloated military budgets sustained by both
countries. Certainly, Florida's repeated affirmation of
A.V.C. does not foster that understanding either.
155
There must be a willingness on the part of
educators to change this cold war environment if
educators are to bring about changes like those
envisioned by Apple (156). However, the United States
is not undergoing a fundamental change in attitude
towards its chief rival, the Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics. Summit conferences and test ban treaties,
while helpful, are only window dressing as long as
national leaders talk about "evil em.pires," students are
required to take A.V.C.-type courses, and nationally
used social studies texts insist that students
uncritically accept that the Soviet Union is the
aggressor against the "free world." For example,
McGruder' s American Government accuses the Soviet Union
of aggression by relying upon U.S. State Department
interpretations. There are no notes or discussions
indicating a legitimate opposing view, such as the
United States being the instigator of some major world
conflicts. One would expect an opposing view in using a
critical thinking approach to social studies
(McClenaghan 493-498).
If a world understanding is to be created and is to
be lasting, there must be lasting world peace. World
156
peace can come about through a mutual and fundamental
change in attitude towards each other. For the U.S.'s
part this includes appropriately referring to eastern
European countries and friends of the Soviet Union as
"socialist" and not "communist," or captive nations.
Moreover, it involves an understanding of not only how
the cold war mentality arose but why past relations with
the U.S.S.R. have failed.
Aside from the fact that the U.S. policymakers have
mistakenly referred to the "spread of communism," these
three strategies have not worked. Instead of
"communism," many more peoples have opted for socialism
since the end of World War Two. A great portion of the
gross national products of the U.S.S.R. and the U.S. is
consumed by bloated war budgets. Clearly, the
traditional cold war mentality and strategies have not
worked. One answer to this problem is a different
curriculum having a truly critical philosophy.
The California Program
California adopted a program in 1985 that goes a
great distance in fulfilling Niemeyer's criteria for a
critical social studies curriculum while, at the same
157
time mitigating the elements which helped spawn
Florida's A.V.C. program. As a response to calls for
upgrading academic standards, the Model Curriculum
Standards were designed to have all students " .
understand and appreciate our culture and our political
and ethical ideals." The core curriculum centers about
" . . . our sense of history, our membership in groups
and institutions, our relationship to nature, our need
for well-being, and our growing dependence on
technology" (California State 1). After being reviewed
by numerous teachers, advisory committees and field
review groups of that state adopted the standards to be
used as a guide for preparing courses of study in the
high schools.
California standards say that "Integral to the
study of History-Social Science is the examination of
issues chosen to teach critical thinking skills." This
includes reporting, analyzing, interpreting, speculating
and writing ". . . critically, using a variety of
resources." As further evidence of the open-mindedness
of the California curriculum the report on standards
states, "Students should be sensitive to the pluralistic
and diverse nature of today's world. They need also to
realize that history does not only deal with white
158
males, nor is it only an artifact of Western
civilization" (California State HS-6). In particular, a
social studies course should "present the history of the
West in a world context, stressing the developing
interrelations between Western societies and other
peoples. Western history and world history are not
synonymous. It should avoid compartmentalizing of
historical chronologies of either the West or the other
major civilizations." A course should . . . consider
both capitalism and its critics besides familiarizing
students with such terms as "capitalism, communism,
industrialism, . . . mercantilism, and socialism"
(California State HS-33).
California urges teachers to present students with
varying views on nationalism, liberalism, socialism, and
popular democracy, as well as the "Ideologies of
democracy, socialism, communism, and fascism"
(California State HS-40 - HS-41). The catalog of
standards occasionally slips into questionable mandates
such as "A course should show that the United States has
an economy characterized by . . . competition and market
structure, freedom of choice" and assertions that income
distribution in the U.S. ". . . is a result of an
interaction of market forces and government policies"
159
(California State HS-54). While it also refers to the
" . . . appreciation of modern democratic values in
comparison to other political ideologies, including
totalitarianism and dictatorships," no modern country is
named, thus avoiding the cold war name-calling
(California State HS-35).
There are vast sections on labor history, roles of
women, the environment, and common people, such as
farmers, slaves, laborers, women, and children
(California State HS-18 - HS-22). Also, teachers are to
spend time on civil rights, political corruption (such
as Watergate), imperialism, native Americans, and
different religions. The standards say that a social
studies course should teach "An ability to examine
controversial public issues openly using the most
rigorous intellectual standards" and the critical
thinking skills specifically include defining problems,
judging information, and solving problems (California
State HS-24 ) .
There is none of the Florida D.O.E. rhetoric about
the U.S. economy being the best in the world or that the
benefits of other systems should not be taught. There
is a concern for the cold war and California urges
serious discussions about the war budget and the "...
160
continuing post-war preoccupation with security"
resulting in Vietnam, Central America, and the arms
control debates (California State HS-50). While it may
be expected that there is to be an undercurrent of
advocacy for the U.S. system, students are encouraged to
think critically about all systems and current
governmental policies, including those in the foreign
policy arenas. California may not have a guaranteed
solution for eliminating cold war hysteria, but it
points the way towards a more tolerant U.S. population.
Students hardly can understand other social systems
if the D.O.E. curriculum is used, especially if they are
told that in no way is the Soviet system to be preferred
over that of the U.S. We should accept the Soviet
system for what it is--that is, a system that has much
to offer in the way of solving some urgent U.S.
socioeconomic problems. The Soviet Union already is
taking this approach by glasnost and perestroika , in
adopting some practices used in the U.S. such as
decentralization of some state factories.
If we adopt and teach the view that both countries
can work together in solving the world's problems, we
can talk more seriously about alternative social orders.
In space, as well as on earth, both Soviet and U.S.
161
peoples can further the whole human race by working
together. On the other hand, as long as states like
Florida continue with their hard-line, puerile cold war
rhetoric, we cannot hope for much change. it is 1988,
but Americanism versus Communism is still Florida's law
representing that state's institutionalized ideology.
APPENDIX A
THE AMERICANISM VERSUS COMMUNISM ACT
233.064 Americanism vs. Communism; required high school
course
(1) The Legislature of the state hereby finds it
to be a fact that:
(a) The political ideology commonly known and
referred to as Communism is in conflict with and
contrary to the principles of Constitutional Governm.ent
of the United States as epitomized in its National
Constitution,
(b) The successful exploitation and manipulation
of youth and student groups throughout the world today
are a major challenge which the free world forces must
meet and defeat, and
(c) The best method of meeting this challenge is
to have the youth of the state and nation thoroughly and
completely informed as to the evils, dangers and
fallacies of Communism by giving them a thorough
understanding of the entire communist movement,
including its history, doctrines, objectives and
techniques .
(2) The public high schools shall each teach a
complete course of not less than 30 hours, to all
students enrolled in said public high schools entitled
"Americanism versus Communism."
(3) The course shall provide adequate instruction
in the history, doctrines, objectives and techniques of
Communism and shall be for the primary purpose of
instilling in the minds of the students a greater
appreciation of democratic processes, freedom under law,
and the will to preserve that freedom.
(4) The course shall be one of orientation in
comparative governments and shall emphasize the free-
enterprise-competitive economy of the United States as
the one which produces higher wages, higher standards of
living, greater personal freedom and liberty than any
other system of economics on earth.
162
163
(5) The course shall lay particular emphasis upon
the dangers of Communism, the ways to fight Communism,
the evils of Communism, the fallacies of Communism, and
the false doctrines of Communism.
(6) The state textbook council and the Department
ofEducation shall take such action as may be necessary
and appropriate to prescribe suitable textbook and
instructional material as provided by state law, using
as one of their guides the official reports of the House
committee on Un-American Activities and the Senate
Internal Security Subcommittee of the United States
Congress .
1988 Revised Florida Statues
APPENDIX B
THE FREE ENTERPRISE AND CONSUMER EDUCATION ACT
233.0641 Free enterprise and consumer education program
(1) This section may be known and cites as the
"Free enterprise and Consumer Education Act."
(2) The public schools shall each conduct a free
enterprise and consumer education program in which each
student shall participate.
(3) Acknowledging that the free enterprise or
competitive economic system exists as the prevailing
economic system in the United States, the program shall
provide detailed instruction in the day-to-day consumer
activities of our society, which instruction may
include, but not be limited to, advertising, appliances,
banking, budgeting, credit, governmental agencies,
guarantees and warranties, home and apartment rental and
ownership, insurance, law, medicine, motor vehicles,
professional services, savings, securities, and taxes.
The program shall provide a full explanation of the
factors governing the free enterprise system and the
forces influencing production, distribution, and
consumption of goods and services. It shall provide an
orientation in other economic systems.
(4) In developing the consumer education program,
the Department of Education shall give special emphasis
to :
(a) Coordinating the efforts of the various
disciplines within the educational system and activities
of the divisions of the Department of Education which are
concerned with consumer education.
(b) Assembling, developing, and distributing
instructional materials for use in consumer education.
(c) Developing programs for inservice and preserves
teacher training in consum.er education.
(d) Coordinating and assisting the efforts of
private organizations and other governmental agencies
which are concerned with consumer education.
(5) The commissioner of Education shall, at least
30 days prior to the 1975 session of the Legislature,
164
165
transmit to members of the State Board of Education, the
President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of
Representatives, and the chairmen of the Senate and
House Committees on Education a statement of the overall
free enterprise and consumer program, together with a
recommended method of evaluating student understanding
of the program. Each year thereafter, the commissioner
shall transmit to the above named persons an appraisal
of the overall consumer education program as to the
effectiveness as shown by performance-based tests,
efficiency and utilization of resources, including there
with a statement of the overall consumer education
program for the coming fiscal year and any other
recommendations deemed by the commissioner to be
appropriate .
1988 Revised Florida Statues
WORKS CITED
Aneitia, Durlynn. Don't Get Fired! Baltimore, MD: Media
Materials, Inc., 1980.
Apple, Michael W. Ideology and Curriculum. London;
Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1979.
Aristotle. "Politics." The Basic Works of Aristotle. Ed.
Richard McKeon. New York: Random House, 1941.
Ashby, W. Ross. "Principles of the Self -Organizing
System. " Modern Systems Research for the Behaviorial
Scientist , A Sourcebook. Ed. Walter Buckley. Chicago:
Aldine Publishing Co., 1968. 108-118.
Baum, Robert. Logic. 2nd. ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart
and Winston, 1978.
Beck, Melinda. "Could It Hap en In America?" Newsweek.
17 December 1984: 43.
Bell, Daniel. "The End of Ideology Debate in the West."
The End of Ideology Debate. Ed. Maurice Waxman. New
York: Funk and Wagnalls, Publishers, 1968. 87-105.
Belth, Marc. The Process of Thinking. New York: David
McCay Co. , Inc. , 1977 .
Bertalanffy, Ludwig von. "A General System Theory - A
Critical Review." Modern Systems Research for the
Behaviorial Scientist, A Sourcebook. Ed. Walter
Buckley. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co., 1968. 11-30.
Boden, Margaret. Artificial Intelligence and Man. New
York: Basic Books, Inc., 1977.
"Bottom Line Personal." Boardroom Reports. 30 May 1988,
sec .1:3.
Bowles, Samuel, and Herbert Gintis. Schooling in
Capitalist America. New York: Basic Books, 1976.
166
167
Broad, C.D. "Critical and Speculative Philosophy." An
Introduction to Philosophical Inquiry : Classical and
Contemporary Sources. Ed. Joseph Margolis. New York:
Alfred Knopf, 1968. 9-21.
Brock, Bernard L., and Robert L. Scott, eds . Methods of
Rhetorical Criticism, A Twentieth Century Perspective.
Detroit, Mi.: Wayne State University Press, 1980.
Buchanan, Patrick. "A Crisis of Godlessness." The
Arizona Daily Star. 15 May 1988, sec. C: 1.
Burtt, Edwin A. In Search of Philosophic Understanding .
New York: Mentor Books, New American Library, 1967.
Butcher, Lee. Florida's Power Structure. Tampa, Florida:
Trend Publishers, 1976.
California State Department of Education. Model
Curriculum Standards, Grades Nine Through Twelve
(Pagination done by two letters, followed by a number).
Sacramento, Cal.: State Department of Education, 1985.
Carmody, Diedre. "Study Blames Poverty for Most
Homelessness." New York Times. 2 November 1984: Sec. B-
2 .
Center for Economic Education. "Florida's Free
Enterprise and Consumer Education Program." Gainesville,
Florida: University of Florida, undated.
Clines, Francis X. "Reagan Denounces Ideology of Soviet
as 'Focus of Evil.'" New York Times. 9 March 1983,
sec . 1 : 1 .
Compton, James V. "Anti-Communism in American Life Since
the Second World War." Forums in History. St. Charles,
Mo.: Forum Press, No. FA-035, 1975. 2-15.
Copi, Irving. Introduction to Logic. 6th ed. New York:
Macmillan Publishers, 1982.
Cornforth, Maurice. The Theory of Knowledge . New York:
Little New World Paperbacks, 1971.
de Toqueville, Alexis. Democracy in America. Ed. Richard
D. Heffner. New York: Mentor, New American Library,
1956.
168
Dewey, John. Democracy and Education, New York:
Macmillan Paperbacks, 1961.
Domhoff, William. Who Rules America? Englewood Cliffs,
N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1967.
Dresner, Joanne. It's Up to You. New York: Longman, Inc.
Dye, Thomas. Power and Society: An Introduction to the
Social Sciences. North Scituate, Mass: Duxberry Press,
1979 .
Easton, David. The Political System. New York: Alfred
Knopf, 1965.
"A Systems Analysis of Political Life." Modern
Systems Research for the Behavior ial Scientist , A
Sourcebook. Ed. Walter Buckley. Chicago: Aldine
Publishing Co. , 1968. 428-436.
Evans, M. Stanton. "A Conservative Case for Freedom."
What Is Conservatism? Ed. Frank S. Meyer. New York:
Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1964. 67-77.
Feiblem.an, James K. Assumptions of Grand Logics. Boston:
Martinus Nijhoff, 1979.
Felder, David. The Best Investment : Land in a Loving
Community. Tallahassee, Fl.: Wellington Press, 1983.
Florida Council on Economic Education. "1981-1982 Annual
Report." Tampa, Florida: Author, 1982.
Florida Council on Economic Education. Why? The Free
Enterprise Development Fund. Ta.mpa, Florida (undated).
Florida Revised Statutes, 1988.
Florida State Department of Education. "A Resource Unit:
Americanism vs. Communism. " Tallahassee, Florida:
Department of Education, 1962.
Florida Statistical Abstract. 17th ed. Gainesville,
Florida: University Press, 1983.
1980.
169
Fogelin, Robert J. Understanding Arguments: An
Introduction to Informal Logic. New York: Harcourt,
Brace, Jovanovich, Inc., 1978.
Fraser, Stewart E. "Americanism vs. Communism: A
Historical Document." School and Society, 9 (1966): 355-
357.
Freudenheim, Milt. "Doctors Finding Cost-Cutting Rules
Hard to Accept." New York Times, 1 July 1984, sec. 4,
8E.
Fuer, Lewis S. "Beyond Ideology." The End of Ideology
Debate. Ed. Maurice Waxman. New York: Funk and
Wagnalls, Publishers, 1968. 64-68.
Goddard, Frederick; Glenna Carr; Christine A. Randall. A
Curriculum Guide for Teaching Economics and Consumer
Education : High School, The American Free Enterprise
System (Guide No. CH-310) Center for Economic Education,
Gainesville, Florida: Florida College of Business
Administration/College of Education, 1987.
_ _ _• A Curriculum Guide for Teaching Economics and
Consumer Education : Productivity, Middle School (Guide
No. CM-202) Center for Economic Education, Gainesville,
Florida: Florida College of Business
Administration/College of Education, 1981.
_ _ _• A Curriculum Guide for Teaching Economics and
Consumer Education: Public and Private Property, Grade
Two (Guide No. CE-102) Center for Economic Education,
Gainesville, Florida: Florida College of Business
Administration/College of Education, 1981.
Gold, Gerard G. Industry-Labor Collaboration : Designing
Mechanisms for Sustained Impact. (ERIC, April 1981) 4.
(ED-201-743) .
Governor's Commission on Secondary Schools--
"Recommendations for Strengthening Secondary Education."
Tallahassee, FL: 26 July 1982 (Unpublished xeroxed
report) .
Greever, Barry. Tactical Investigations for People's
Struggles. Washington, D.C.: Citizens Action Group,
1983.
170
Haber, Robert A. "The End of Ideology As Ideology." The
End of Ideology Debate. Ed. Maurice Waxinan. New York:
Funk and Wagnalls, Publishers, 1968. 182-205.
Harrington, Michael. "The Anti-Ideology Ideologues." The
End of Ideology Debate. Ed. Maurice Waxman. New York:
Funk and Wagnalls, Publishers, 1968. 342-351.
Heinpel, Carl. "On The Nature of Mathematical Truth." An
Introduction to Philosophical Inquiry : Classical and
Contemporary Sources. Ed. Joseph Margolis. New York:
Alfred A. Knopf, 1968. 484-497.
Hodges, Donald C. "The End of 'The End of Ideology.'"
The End of Ideology Debate. Ed. Maurice Waxman. New
York: Funk and Wagnalls, Publishers, 1968. 373-388.
Hodgetts, Richard M. , and Terry L. Smart. Fundamentals
of the American Free Enterprise System. Menlo Park,
Cal.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., 1978.
Hoffer, Eric. The True Believer. New York: Harper Row
Publishers-The Perennial Library, 1966.
"Honesty Testing." Security World 8 (1984): 71.
Hoover, J. Edgar. Masters of Deceit. New York: Holt,
Rinehart, and Winston, 1958.
Infield, Henrik. Co-operative Communities at Work.
London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., Ltd., 1947.
Kahane, Howard. Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric, 2nd ed.
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1976.
Kastner, Harold H. Jr. "A Report: Economic Terms for
Economic Education." Florida School Bulletin. 25 (1983):
33-34.
Kirk, Russell. "Prescription, Authority, and Ordered
Freedom." What Is Conservatism? Ed. Frank S. Meyer. New
York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1964. 23-40.
Knox, Carolyn W. Getting a Job. Baltimore: Media
Materials, Inc., 1980.
Lilienfeld, Robert. The Rise of Systems Theory. New
171
York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1978.
Lindbloom, Charles E. "The Market as Prison." The
Journal of Politics 2 (1982) 324-36.
Locke, John. "The Second Treatise of Government." Two
Treatises of Government. Ed. Peter Laslett. New York:
Mentor Books, 1965. 307-477.
"Management-Labor Cooperation Pays Off." Business Week
30 July 1984: 124.
Mannheim, Karl. Ideology and Utopia. Trans. Louis Wirth
and Edward Shils. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co.,
1936.
Marx, Karl. Selected Works. 3 vols. Moscow: Progress
Publishers, 1973.
McClenaghan, William A, ed. Magruder's American
Government. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1981.
Meyer, Frank S. "Freedom, Tradition, Conservatism." in
his edition of What Is Conservatism? New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston, 1964. 229-232.
. "Consensus and Divergence." in his edition of What
Is Conservatism? New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston,
1964.
Mills, C. Wright. The Power Elite., New York: Oxford
University Press, 1956.
Morris, Samuel, compiler. The Florida Handbook.
Tallahassee, Florida: Peninsular Publishers, 1984.
Nadel S.F. "Social Control and Social Regulation."
Modern Systems Research for the Behaviorial Scientist, A
Sourcebook. Ed. Walter Buckley. Chicago: Aldine
Publishing Co., 1968. 401-408.
Neill, A.S. Summerhill: A Radical Approach to Child
Rearing. New York: Hart Publishing Co., 1960.
Niemeyer, Gerhart. Between Nothingness and Paradise .
Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Press, 1971.
172
. Law Without Force. Princeton, N.J.; Princeton
University Press, 1941.
North American Congress on Latin America. NACLA Research
Methodology Guide. New York: North American Congress on
Latin America, 1976.
"Ousted Worker Wins a Suit Under Toxic Chemical Law."
New York Times. 19 August 1984, sec 1: 42.
Paul, Krishan K. Vocational Education for Job
Creation. (ERIC, April 1981). 3. (ED 201-779).
Perl, Peter. "Some Say Computers Creating 'Electronic
Sweatshops.'" Sunday Advocate (Baton Rouge, La.) 23
September 1984: 24-A.
Petersen, Craig. Business and Government. New York:
Harper Row Publishers, 1981.
Plato. "The Republic." The Collected Dialogues. Eds.
Edith Hamilton and Huntington Cairns. New York:
Bollingon Series LXXI, Pantheon Books, 1961.
"Position Statement of the National Association of State
Directors of Vocational Education." Florida Vocational
Journal 5 (1981): 11.
Postman, Neil. "Critical Thinking in the Electronic
Era." National Forum 1 (1985): 4.
"Remarks by President at Prayer Breakfast." New York
Times 24 August 1984, sec. 1: 11.
Ries, Raymond E. "Social Science and Ideology." The End
of Ideology Debate. Ed. Maurice Waxman. New York: Funk
and Wagnalls, Publishers, 1968. 281-290.
Rodgers, Harrell H., Jr., and Michael Harrington.
Unfinished Democracy. Glenview, 111.: Scott Foresman and
Company, 1981.
Rosser, J. Barkley. Logic for Mathematicians. 2nd ed.
New York: Chelsea Publishing Company, 1978.
Scriven, Michael. Reasoning. New York: McGraw-Hill Book
Company, 1976.
173
Skene, Neil. "House: Keep 'Americanism' Course Alive."
St. Petersburg Times, 1 June 1983, sec B:l.
Toulrain, Stephen, Richard Rieke, and Allan Janik. An
Introduction to Reasoning . New York: Macmillan
Publishing Co., Inc., 1979.
Turner, Fred. "Florida's Americanism vs
Course." Florida's Education 2 (1962): 7.
Communism
U.S. Bureau of Census. Statistical Abstract of the
United States, 1984. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1984.
U.S. Congress. House Committee on Un-American
Activities. Facts on Communism, The Communist Ideology.
Vol. 1. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1960.
Weddle, Perry. Argument: A Guide to Critical Thinking.
New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1978.
Wit, Daniel, and Allan Dionisopolous .
Government and Political System. River
Laidlaw Brothers, Publishers, 1973.
Our American
Forest , 111:
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Upon graduating from Kennebunk (Maine) High School,
Jeremy Horne attended Nasson College in Springvale,
Maine, later receiving his A.B. degree from Johns
Hopkins University in international affairs in 1967. He
completed his master's degree in political science from
Southern Connecticut State University in 1969. Based on
classified archives in Washington, he concluded in his
thesis that the U.S. State Department and U.S. War
Department from 1931 to 1947 formulated well-articulated
but contradictory policies on how to use Viet-Nam to the
U.S. ' s advantage .
Besides being a reporter for several newspapers and
working as a VISTA volunteer in the early 1970s, Horne
taught extensively both in public schools and community
colleges in numerous states. More recent university and
college experience includes graduate assistant teaching
in logic at University Florida from 1982 to 1984 and a
year teaching beginning, intermediate, and advanced
logic at Louisiana State University from 1984-1985.
Currently, Horne is teaching logic at Cochise Community
College in Douglas, Arizona.
174
175
The widespread rigidity in school curricula,
especially the Americanism versus Communism, and Free
Enterprise laws, made him determined to take advantage
of the University of Florida philosophy department's
applied philosophy program in preparing a document to be
used in helping to change Florida's program and programs
like it.
I certify that I have read this study and that in
my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of
scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope
and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor
of Philosophy.
Richard P
Associate
Haynes
Professor
hair
of Philosophy
I certify that I have read this study and that in
my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of
scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope
and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor
of Philosophy.
I 'h ■ i 111 ; )
Ellen S. Haring ^
Professor of Philosophy \
I certify that I have read this study and that in
my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of
scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope
and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor
of Philosophy.
Robert D'Amico
Associate Professor of Philosophy
I certify that I have read this study and that in
my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of
scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope
and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor
of Philosophy.
Norman N. Markel
Professor of Speech
I certify that I have read this study and that in
my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of
scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope
and quality, as a dissertation for the deqree of Doctor
of Philosophy.
This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate
Faculty of the Department of Philosophy in the College
of Liberal Arts and Sciences and to the Graduate School
and was accepted as partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Samuel D. Andrews
Associate Professor of Foundations
of Education
December 1988
Dean, Graduate School
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11